Delhi HC Examines AG’s Refusal in Contempt Plea Against The Wire, LiveLaw [Read Order]

New Delhi: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice on a petition filed by Venkatesh S, who appeared in person and challenged an order dated November 30, 2023, passed by the Attorney General.

The case arises from a request made by Venkatesh S to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against The Wire, LiveLaw, and LiveLaw’s Managing Editor, Manu Sebastian, over an article titled “How Has the Supreme Court Fared During the Modi Years?” The article was originally published by LiveLaw in April 2019 and was subsequently republished by The Wire.

Venkatesh objected to portions of the article that characterised the Supreme Court, after five years of the Modi government, as “timid, tentative, fragmented and vulnerable” and “wary of hurting the central executive.” In his request dated October 20, 2023, addressed to the Attorney General and Solicitor General, he alleged that such remarks were scandalous, denigrated the Supreme Court, and lowered the authority of the Court. He also contended that since the article remained available online, the alleged contempt was continuing in nature.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani declined to grant consent to initiate contempt proceedings. In his order, the Attorney General noted that the article presented a particular perspective on the role of the judiciary and the executive, and that such perspectives could arguably fall within the scope of free speech. He observed that criminal contempt carries far-reaching consequences, particularly in the context of freedom of speech and expression, and that contempt jurisdiction can be invoked only in clear cases of deliberate and wilful contumacious conduct. He concluded that the article did not fall within the scope of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General is required in certain cases before criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated. Venkatesh thereafter moved the Delhi High Court challenging the Attorney General’s refusal.

The petition raises two questions for the Court’s consideration. The first is whether the Attorney General’s opinion refusing consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second is whether the article in question independently warrants criminal contempt action.

In its order dated May 13, 2026, the Court recorded that Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma had placed a note for its consideration. After perusing the note, the Court observed that there appeared to be divergent opinions among different High Courts on the first issue and that the matter, therefore, required consideration.

Notice was issued to the fifth respondent through all permissible modes, returnable on September 29, 2026, with a direction to file a reply before the next date of hearing.

Case Details: Venkatesh S v. Attorney General for India & Ors., Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 6923/2024. Before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. Order dated May 13, 2026. Petitioner appeared in person. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, along with Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Amit Gupta, Saurabh Tripathi, Shubham Sharma, Urja Pandey, Vinayak Aren, and Aishwarya Nigam, appeared for the respondents.

[Read Order]