The Supreme Court on Friday initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Chandigarh-based journalist Ajay Shukla for allegedly making defamatory and contemptuous remarks against a senior judge of the apex court on his YouTube channel.

A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar took strong exception to the content of the video, observing that the remarks appeared to be an attempt to undermine the dignity of the judiciary and bring the institution into disrepute.

This is the first suo motu contempt case taken up by the Supreme Court in 2025, signaling a firm stance on safeguarding the judiciary’s institutional integrity.

The court noted that the video contained derogatory allegations questioning the judge’s impartiality and judicial conduct. In its order, the bench stressed that although Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

“Such scandalous allegations widely published are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary,” the court observed. “A person cannot be permitted to make allegations which are in the nature of defaming a judge of this Court and also contemptuous in nature.”

The court directed Shukla to take down the video from his YouTube channel immediately and scheduled the contempt hearing for July 2025. The registry has been instructed to treat the matter as a suo motu contempt case and issue notice to Shukla.

The bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The SG expressed appreciation for the Court’s decision to take cognizance of the matter on its own motion.

While the order does not name the judge referred to in the video, it comes shortly after Shukla published critical commentary concerning Justice Bela M. Trivedi. Shukla has been serving as Editor-in-Chief of Chandigarh-based Varprad Media for over three years.

He now faces the prospect of legal consequences under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which allows for imprisonment or fines. The court’s decision to act suo motu, without the need for an external complaint, underscores the seriousness of the allegations.