The Allahabad High Court held that the criticism of a judge must be free from the imputation of improper motives.

Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutional validity of the power of contempt of court administered by the Supreme Court under Article 129, as a reasonable restriction vide Article 19 (2).

Supreme Court case on the principle of ‘continuing contempt, based on truth not being a defence in a contempt of court case. The principle has been changed by amendment.

Landmark case on Contempt of Court, in which the Supreme Court found former CM of Kerala EMS Namboodiripad guilty of criminal contempt of court for his speech on the judiciary, which was a statement on the role of the judiciary from a Marxist perspective.

Supreme Court case in which the Court laid down guidelines for courts to follow in order to ascertain when reporting by media must be met with punitive action, framed with the aim of maintaining a balance between the interests of the judiciary and the media.

Supreme Court case wherein the general principle that the courts cannot impose ‘prior restraint’ on publications in media was established.

Supreme Court case wherein The Sunday Tribune and Punjab Kesari were found guilty of contempt of court for publishing news items stating that two sons of a senior SC judge and two sons of the Chief Justice of India had been favoured in allotment of petrol outlets from a discretionary quota allotted to the Petroleum Minister. The news reports were held, and accept, to be unconfirmed and false. The newspapers were ordered to publish apologies on their front pages.

Supreme Court case in which it was held that no person is permitted to distort orders of the court and deliberately give a scandalising or ridiculing slant to its proceedings, but the Court also affirmed the right of criticising in good faith in private or public a judgement of the court, while stating that it cannot be exercised with malice or in an attempt to administer justice.

Contempt of Court case against Prashant Bhushan, Arundhati Roy, and Medha Patekar for staging a dharna in front of the Supreme Court on December 13, 2000, and allegedly insulted and assaulted lawyers of the Court.

Supreme Court case finding Arundhati Roy guilty of Contempt of Court for three paragraphs in her affidavit, and for not apologising to the Court for them on the receipt of the Show Cause notice.

High Court decision finding four Mid-Day journalists guilty of Contempt of Court for publishing a cartoon in the newspaper of former CJI Mr. Y. K. Sabharwal.

“What constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on case-to-case basis. Hence, guidelines on reporting cannot be framed across the Board.” Laid down a doctrine that, if requested, would allow courts to temporarily ban media from reporting a case if it would adversely affect the trial, the test being that the ‘actual’ publication “must create a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of the trial”.

“Even then an article has appeared in a magazine called ‘Saga’ titled “Doomed by Dowry” written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the deceased. Giving version of the tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who was responsible for the said article against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter as closed and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice.”

Supreme Court case wherein commercial speech was held to be covered within the ambit of free speech protected under Article 19(a).