Can a social media post about an imminent hearing amount to criminal contempt? An advocate has asked the Attorney General for consent to initiate contempt against Saurav Das over an X post on a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, while accepting that fair criticism of courts is permissible.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Advocate Kaushik Chatterjee, who practises before the Supreme Court, has written to Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani seeking written consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Saurav Das over a post on X concerning a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The Bench referred to in the post comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The letter is dated October 5, 2026. No consent has been granted or refused so far, and no proceeding has been instituted before the Court.
The post and the request
According to the letter, the post was published on X at 9:50 PM on October 4, 2026. It related to two writ petitions listed before the Bench on October 5, 2026, at Serial Nos. 22 and 23: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1246 of 2026, and Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401 of 2026.
This article does not reproduce the post. In neutral terms, the letter describes it as commenting on the Bench, calling on it to step back from hearing the two matters, and expressing a view on how the Bench would be regarded by the public. Mr Chatterjee treats the post as a publication for the purposes of the Act.
What the advocate says
The letter states that judicial decisions and the functioning of the Court are open to fair and even sharp criticism, and that the request is not founded on criticism alone. Mr Chatterjee instead questions whether the post, given its timing and its reference to a hearing that was imminent, crosses into criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. He acknowledges the threshold in Section 13, which requires that the alleged contempt substantially interfere, or tend to substantially interfere, with the due course of justice, and leaves that determination to the Court.
Because a private person cannot move the Supreme Court for criminal contempt on his own, the letter seeks only the Attorney General’s written consent under Section 15(1)(b), which is the statutory precondition for such a motion.
The other side
Mr Das’s response to the request is not available at the time of writing. The contentions summarised above are those of the applicant advocate. They are allegations and submissions only, they are untested, and neither the Attorney General nor the Court has expressed any view on whether the post amounts to contempt. Persons against whom such a request is made are entitled to be heard if proceedings are ever initiated.
Why the request matters
The request puts the line between legitimate criticism of the judiciary and criminal contempt squarely at the stage of the Attorney General’s consent, which acts as a filter before any matter reaches the Court. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, truthful and fair criticism is not an offence, while a publication that scandalises or lowers the authority of a court, or interferes with the course of justice, may be. Whether a comment on a Bench ahead of a listed hearing falls on one side of that line is a question that has not been decided here, and it remains to be seen whether the Attorney General will grant or decline consent.
Matter: Request for consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Saurav Das
Applicant: Advocate Kaushik Chatterjee
Addressed to: Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani
Date of letter: October 5, 2026
Bench referred to: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana