Given the embarrassment and adverse publicity suffered by the Supreme Court because of its verdict holding advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for a couple of tweets, one would have thought the superior judiciary would avoid wading into needless controversies by invoking its contempt jurisdiction. However, Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court seems to believe that anyone criticising judges should be dealt with by the threat of contempt. In an ill-advised move, he has written to the Chief Justice, seeking permission to initiate contempt proceedings against prominent Tamil actor Suriya for an innocuous comment on recent judicial orders declining to interfere with the conduct of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for medical courses. The actor, responding with anguish to recent suicides by MBBS aspirants out of fear of failure, had remarked that “a court that dispenses justice through video-conferencing out of fear of the coronavirus is ordering students to write an exam without fear”. The judge claims that the actor had questioned the integrity and devotion of judges and that such a remark, if unpunished, would undermine public trust in the judiciary. It is only petulant resort to contempt law without necessary cause that would make the layman lose trust in courts. No reasonable person who reads Mr. Suriya’s statement would construe it as contempt of court, as it does nothing more than state an obvious fact: while the pandemic has resulted in virtual hearings, the court has allowed an examination involving a million-and-a-half students.
As pointed out by six former judges of the High Court in a letter to the Chief Justice asking him not to act on Justice Subramaniam’s letter, the judge’s construction of the actor’s comments is off the mark. Besides, no one would believe that the actor had interfered with any judicial proceeding through his comment, or that it hindered the administration of justice in any way. That a judge should show unbelievable alacrity in shooting off a letter to the Chief Justice, within hours of the actor’s statement being aired on television, evidences an alarming level of intolerance towards criticism and a monarchical understanding of how courts ought to deal with public opinion. The actor, who also runs a voluntary organisation dedicated to increasing access to education for under-privileged children, has commented in the past, too, on matters related to education. There is no reason to abridge his constitutional right to do so, especially on an issue of public importance. Further, Justice Subramaniam’s request is also impermissible in law. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to initiate contempt in respect of an order passed by the Supreme Court, going by the apex court’s verdict in Vitusah Oberoi (2017). There is no reason for Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi to permit initiation of contempt action against Mr. Suriya.