Free Speech on Trial: Judicial Sensitivity and the Limits of Critique

Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no one is above the law, notwithstanding how powerful or how rich he or she may be." This is the basic principle of the concept of 'Rule of Law,' which asserts the supremacy of law and puts everyone on equal footing.

- DR. S. KRISHNAN AND RANVEER SINGH RATHORE

Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no one is above the law, notwithstanding how powerful or how rich he or she may be." This is the basic principle of the concept of 'Rule of Law,' which asserts the supremacy of law and puts everyone on equal footing. It is the basic principle of governance of any liberal and democratic society. The judiciary, which is the central pillar of democracy, is the guardian of the Rule of Law. It holds a crucial position in the order and the maintenance of democracy.

The recent proceedings of the Ajmer District court in Kamlesh Mandoliya v. Vikas Divyakirti have reignited the national debate over a fault line in modern Indian jurisprudence: how do we reconcile robust public criticism of our institutions with the urgency to protect individual and collective reputations? When a YouTube video allegedly authored by a coaching institute founder Dr. Vikas Divyakirti sparked criminal defamation proceedings u/s 353 (2), 356 (2) & (3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, and section 66A (b) IT Act (for online transmission), it paved the way for an extensive debate about free speech, judicial sensitivity, and the chilling effect of sweeping defamation laws.

Justice Manmohan Chandel, taking cognizance of the matter, observed prima facie evidence linking Divyakriti's remarks about judges and the judicial system with malicious intent. At this initial stage, though, the judge explicitly noted that one only needs to ask whether the allegations warrant further action, not whether guilt is proven, citing Sonu Gupta v. State of Haryana [(2015) 3 SCC 424] and Nupur Talwar v. CBI [(2012) 11 SCC 465].