'There Is No Justice For Judges Who Are Prey To Social Media Propaganda': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that social media propaganda can destroy judges' reputations within seconds, lamenting that "there is no justice for judges who are prey to such social media propaganda" and warning that false narratives can undermine the credibility of constitutional courts.

"The reputations of judges who discharge their judicial functions are built over a lifetime in the profession, and falsehoods on social media can destroy them irreparably in a matter of seconds," said the bench of Justices Ajay Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant.

The observations were made in an order passed by the division bench 'in chamber' in a suo motu case initiated for criminal contempt proceedings against lawyers allegedly involved in the violence and vandalism in Court No. 49 of the high court on October 28.

In the order dated October 29, authored by Justice Bhanot, the bench also asked the chief justice to consider registration of FIRs against lawyers allegedly involved in the violence and individuals who circulated false social media posts about the incident.

The controversy arose after the newly elected office-bearers of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association issued a letter on October 27 alleging that a lawyer had been humiliated by Justice Bhanot in court and forced to apologise to a senior police official. The letter also alleged that the judge had pointed his finger at the lawyer and directed that he be sent to jail.

The situation escalated on October 28 when a group of lawyers allegedly disrupted court proceedings, shouted slogans and prevented the bench from conducting its daily business. After the judges retired to their chambers, Additional Government Advocate (AGA-I) Paritosh Kumar Malviya approached them, alleging that he had been brutally assaulted by lawyers inside the courtroom for defending the State.

The Registrar General's report corroborated the incident, while videos shown to the bench purportedly identified lawyers involved in the assault.

On the impact of social media, the bench observed that false narratives had been circulated following the incident, bringing the high court and its judges into disrepute.

"The social media platforms had a free run, and truth was the first casualty," the bench observed.

It further remarked that an entire narrative of "falsehoods and half truths" had been developed and propagated to bring the high court into disrepute and undermine its constitutional stature.

The bench added that the threat to constitutional governance was so grave that individual reputations had become insignificant.

It also observed that social media, which was intended to serve as a technological tool, had become a threat to the rule of law and judicial process in the present case.

"Characteristics of social media outpourings where utter falsehoods can pass for truth with immunity and reputations can be destroyed with a sense of impunity and constitutional institutions can be paralyzed without accountability were evidenced in this case as well," it said.

The bench further remarked that the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent large-scale dissemination of fake news was incompatible with the constitutional mandate of courts to discover truth and dispense justice.

At the same time, it clarified that criticism of judicial decisions remains a legitimate exercise of free speech.

"Analysis and criticism of judgements of Courts is a right and at times a duty of the legal fraternity and the citizenry at large. Criticism fosters debate. Debate impels introspection. Introspection raises the quality of justice," the bench observed.

However, it cautioned that there were boundaries to judicial discourse which must be respected.

"Anarchy is not a species of dissent. Freedom of speech at the Bar is not the freedom to slander the bench," it said.

Holding that the conduct of the lawyers prima facie amounted to criminal contempt by lowering the authority of the court and obstructing the administration of justice, the bench said that violence could not be allowed to go unanswered in the name of maintaining harmony between the Bar and Bench.

It accordingly directed that the matter be placed before the chief justice for transmission to an appropriate Bench for criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned lawyers.

The bench also requested the Chief Justice to consider directing the Registrar General to ensure registration of FIRs against individuals who circulated false social media posts about the incident. It further sought consideration of directions for blocking and deleting such posts.

The order also described the criminalisation of the Bar as a serious institutional concern, observing that it was "a faultline that is tearing at the very foundations of the judicial system in the State of Uttar Pradesh".

Case Title: In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.202

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant

Order Date: October 29, 2026