Raj Court Takes Cognisance of Complaint Against Drishti IAS Founder Over Remarks on Judiciary

Raj Court Takes Cognisance of Complaint Against Drishti IAS Founder Over Remarks on Judiciary

A court in Rajasthan has taken cognisance of a criminal complaint against Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, founder of Drishti IAS, over allegedly derogatory remarks made against the judiciary in a viral video titled “IAS v/s Judge: Who is More Powerful.”

In an order passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Manmohan Chandel of the Ajmer Court, the judge observed that Divyakirti’s alleged statements did not qualify as constitutionally protected speech or academic criticism but rather amounted to a “scandalous and intentional attack” on the dignity of the judiciary.

The Court held that the remarks, which were circulated widely on social media, were made in an "indecent and insulting tone" and appeared to prima facie attract offences under Sections 353(2), 356(2), and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 66A(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Dr. Divyakirti has been directed to appear before the Court in person on July 22. The Court also instructed the Ajmer Police to carry out a further investigation.

The complaint was filed by advocate Kamlesh Mandoliya, who alleged that the video contained statements undermining the credibility and independence of the judiciary, such as claims that High Court judges are appointed through lobbying rather than merit.

According to Mandoliya, the remarks were not only insulting to judges and lawyers but also had the effect of eroding public confidence in the judicial system, particularly among civil service aspirants.

In response, Divyakirti denied any direct connection to the video, asserting that he neither created nor authorised its publication. He argued that the video may have been edited and uploaded by third parties without his knowledge. He further contended that the content, even if attributed to him, was a general commentary on public institutions and protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

However, the Court found that the video, as circulated, mocked the judiciary in a public forum and contributed to a growing trend of using defamatory commentary for social media attention.

“Veiled threats, indecent behaviour, and malicious attacks on the judiciary... question the independence and impartiality of the institution and cause erosion of public trust,” the order stated.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy