Challenging a judge’s integrity must be backed by cogent evidence: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court states allegations against judges must be backed by evidence, as unfounded claims undermine judicial authority. Contempt proceedings initiated.

The Delhi High Court has observed that allegations challenging a judge’s integrity must be backed by cogent evidence as such claims erode their authority and impedes the fair, fearless delivery of justice.

The court was hearing a suo motu contempt petition against a YouTuber and two advocates for making scandalous remarks about the judiciary.

A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja in a verdict on Tuesday said, “If one has to attack a judicial officer on his integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence; it cannot be made lightly. Such an attack, if made without any basis, undermines the authority of the judicial officer and interferes with the dispensation of justice by him/her without fear or favour. Any such criticism must therefore be well-founded, especially because the judicial officer, unlike the complainant, has no means to justify his actions in public.”

The court was hearing a suo motu contempt petition against a YouTuber and two advocates for making scandalous remarks about the judiciary, including unproven allegations of bias against judicial officers, in videos featuring interviews with two advocates. The contempt was initiated in 2025 following the reference made by two judicial officers.

The concerned advocates apologised to the court saying they had neither consented to the uploading of their interviews nor were they aware of the objectionable thumbnails or banners accompanying the videos. The court accepted their explanations as genuine and dropped the contempt proceedings against them.

However, the YouTuber continued to defend his remarks, claiming that they were part of public interest advocacy aimed at judicial reforms and promoting audio-video recording of court proceedings.

Following this, the court held the YouTuber guilty of criminal contempt, observing that his intent was solely to scandalise and lower the image of judicial officers in the eyes of the public.

“The intent of respondent no. 2 is, therefore, writ large of only scandalising and lowering the image of these judicial officers in the general public, thereby lowering the authority of the court. It is not to generate a healthy debate but to scandalise the court. It is not bona fide but is mala fide to bring to disrepute the judicial system and to lower the authority of the courts,” the court said.

The matter regarding the sentence has been fixed for May 12.