P.N. DUDA V. V. P. SHIV SHANKAR AND ORS INSC 106; AIR 1988 SC 1208; 1988 SCR 547; 1988 SCC 167; 1988 JT 102; 1988 SCALE 728

Name of the case: P.N Duda V. V.P Shiv Shankar and Ors Year decided: 15 April, 1988 Facts: P.N Duda , was an advocate who filed a writ petition alleging contempt of court against V.P Shiv Shankar, the then Union Minister of Law, Justice, And Company Affairs. The Petitioner alleged that certain statements made by V.P Shiv Shankar in a speech at a lawyer’s function in Hyderabad were derogatory towards the judiciary itself, bias in favour of the wealthy and against the weaker sections of society. The petitioner claimed that these comments made by Minister amounted to criminal contempt of court, as they undermined the authority and dignity of the judiciary. The minister argued that the speech was made in general context to provoke thought on socio-economic realities rather than disrespect or scandalize the court. Issue: 1. Whether the speech lower the authority of judiciary under the provisions of contempt of courts Act ,1971 2. If article19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech and expression, extend to public officials making critical remarks about judiciary 3. Was the speech a constructive critique of judicial decisions or was it just and attempt to lower the reputation of the judiciary 4. Does the position of the speaker(in this case, Union Minister For Law) impose an additional responsibility to avoid statements that could be perceived as undermining judicial independence Decision: The court dismissed the petition for contempt of court against V.P Shiv Shankar. The court stated that judiciary is not immune from fair and constructive criticism, criticism of judicial functioning or judgements are fine, as long as it does not interfere with the administration of justice or lower the authority of the courts. While acknowledging that Shiv Shankar was a Union Minister , the court found that his comments were addressing broader systematic issues(such as political and social issues) rather than targeting specific judges or judgements. The court found no evidence of malice or intent to scandalize the judiciary, the remarks were seen as expression of opinion. Majority Decision Reasoning: • Criticism vs contempt: the court held that in democracy, judiciary is not immune from constructive criticisms and opinions of the people. As long as those doesn’t interfere with the administration of justice, it does not constitute to contempt. • Context of the speech: the court considered that the context and intent behind the speech was to generally criticize the socio-economic biases perceived in the judicial decisions and not a direct attack on judiciary’s integrity of independence. • The court emphasized the importance of protecting article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) in a democratic society Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgement was unanimous. Impact of the case: The court stressed that constructive criticism even if sharp, serves to improve institutions rather than undermine them but also cautioned against reckless or malicious attacks that might erode the public confidence in the judiciary. It reiterated the judiciary’s strength lies in its impartiality and integrity , and robust institutions should be open to criticism.