Supreme Court: Citizens Have Right to Criticise Judgments, Judiciary Should Not Be ‘Oversensitive’

NewDelhi:  The Supreme Court of India on Friday made an important observation — people have the fundamental right to criticise court judgments, and the judiciary should not be “oversensitive” to such views.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, said that healthy criticism is part of a strong democracy.

What Did the Court Say?

The Chief Justice clearly stated:

• People can express their opinions on court rulings

• Even if someone feels a judgment goes against public interest, they can say so

• Criticism of judgments is not an attack on the judiciary

The bench remarked:
“Why should the judiciary be so oversensitive? People have a right to criticise our judgments.”

What Was the Case About?

The court was hearing a petition against an old NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook.

• The book mentioned that some recent judgments view slum dwellers as encroachers

• The petitioner wanted this line removed

The Supreme Court refused to delete it, saying:

• It is just a viewpoint, not an insult

• Textbooks can present different perspectives

Centre Forms Expert Committee

During the hearing, the Central Government informed the court that a high-level expert committee has been formed to review content related to the judiciary.

Members include:

• Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal

• Former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra

• Former SC judge Justice Aniruddha Bose

Free Speech vs Contempt

This ruling reinforces an important principle:

• Fair and reasonable criticism is allowed

• Personal attacks on judges can amount to contempt of court

The court made it clear that disagreeing with a judgment is not a crime — it is a democratic right.

Why This Matters

• Strengthens freedom of speech

• Encourages public debate on judgments

• Shows that courts are open to scrutiny

This decision highlights that in a democracy, questioning decisions — even of the highest court — is both allowed and necessary.