Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
There is a curious paradox at the heart of the Indian republic.
Citizens are free to criticise the President of India, the highest office in the land — the very embodiment of the Constitution. But if they criticise judges of the Supreme Court of India, they may find themselves staring at a contempt notice.
It is one of those quiet contradictions that sits in our constitutional architecture like an awkward piece of furniture nobody wishes to move.
The President is the head of the State. Every law passed by Parliament requires presidential assent. Every government acts in the President’s name. Yet citizens, journalists and politicians freely criticise presidential decisions — sometimes harshly. No one is hauled before a court for “lowering the dignity of the President.”
Why?
Because the framers of the Constitution understood a fundamental truth about republics: public offices must remain open to scrutiny.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, B. R. Ambedkar repeatedly emphasised that India was not creating an elected monarch. The President, he explained, would be a constitutional functionary exercising powers on the aid and advice of the government.
The sovereign in a republic would not be the President.
It would be the people.
That is why the Constitution deliberately avoided creating any offence resembling the monarchical crime of “insulting the sovereign.” The President was given immunity from prosecution while in office under Article 361 — not immunity from criticism.
The framers knew that democracies do not thrive on reverence. They thrive on debate.
And yet, when it comes to the judiciary, the mood changes dramatically.
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criticism of judges can invite punishment if it is deemed to “scandalise the court” or lower its authority. The phrase itself sounds like a relic from a dusty colonial courtroom — and indeed it is.
The doctrine of “scandalising the court” emerged in British imperial jurisprudence to protect colonial courts from public criticism. In societies ruled by imperial authority, the judiciary could not afford to look vulnerable.
But history has a wicked sense of irony.
Britain itself abolished this offence in 2013 through reforms under the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Lawmakers concluded that mature democracies must tolerate criticism of judges. Courts command respect through integrity, not intimidation.
India, however, still retains the colonial doctrine.
Legal scholars have pointed out this anomaly for years. The former colony continues to enforce a legal principle that the former empire itself has discarded.
The irony deepens when one recalls that many concerns about the judiciary have not been raised by journalists or activists but by judges themselves. Former Supreme Court Judge Ruma Pal once spoke candidly about what she called the “seven sins of the judiciary,” including opacity and arrogance. Other senior jurists have acknowledged systemic weaknesses and the urgent need for institutional reform.
If judges themselves can discuss these issues openly, why should citizens whisper about them in fear of contempt?
The judiciary is a pillar of democracy, but pillars must withstand scrutiny. Courts derive their authority not from constitutional text alone but from the public’s faith that justice is delivered fairly, transparently and without favour.
That faith cannot be protected by punishing criticism.
Indeed, excessive sensitivity can achieve the opposite effect. When institutions react sharply to scrutiny, they unintentionally signal insecurity. And insecurity rarely inspires confidence.
This is not an argument for reckless attacks on judges. Personal abuse and baseless allegations serve no democratic purpose. But reasoned criticism of institutions must remain part of public discourse.
A confident judiciary should welcome it.
Because the strength of democratic institutions lies not in insulation from criticism but in their ability to endure it.
India’s founders understood this instinctively. They trusted citizens enough to allow criticism of the President — the highest office in the republic.
Perhaps the time has come to extend the same confidence to the judiciary.
After all, the Constitution did not create citizens to serve institutions.
It created institutions to serve citizens.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.