Key Points

The Division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, while refusing to accept the apology, observed, "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap--say sorry--and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer, nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word."

The proceedings were initiated suo motu after respondent no 1---Dhairya Sushant, uploaded a video on social media levelling grave allegations against the judiciary and naming a sitting judge of the High Court.

The video also made claims of a collusion between judges, lawyers, and drug dealers, while accusing a judge of favouring the accused in a theft and narcotics case.

The monologue, described by the court as "contemptuous," alleged that "justice is being given on the basis of face value and favouritism," and claimed judicial bias in granting bail to accused persons involved in serious crimes.

Respondent no 2 echoed these charges, stating that "the soul of justice is dead" and accusing judges of being complicit.

In a detailed 22-page order, the bench cited multiple Supreme Court precedents, including LD Jaikwal vs State of UP and TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Ashok Khot, to assert that an apology in a contempt case must reflect real contrition and cannot be a mere tactical ploy.

"Had the respondents been sincere and honest, they would have made all endeavour to apologise at the earliest given opportunity," the court noted, adding, "Rather we are convinced that it is a device adopted by the respondents to escape the rigours of the law."

The bench categorically rejected the apology submitted on June 25, noting that the respondents continued to deny that their words were contemptuous, and instead left it to the court to decide if anything was offensive.

"Such an apology can merely be termed as a paper apology," the judges said.

The court has now fixed July 16, 2025, for framing charges against both respondents, who have been directed to remain personally present in court.

"An apology can be accepted if the conduct can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court," the bench said. "But where there is no genuine regret or repentance, it cannot be accepted," the court order reads.

This case has brought into sharp focus the boundaries of free speech in judicial criticism and the sanctity of judicial processes in the face of digital-age commentary.

- ANI