The Madras High Court recently invalidated the consent given in September 2021 by Tamil Nadu Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram to initiate contempt of court proceedings against political commentator and Thuglak magazine's editor, S Gurumurthy, due to his critical comments about the judiciary.

Justice N. Seshasayee revoked the aforementioned consent, emphasizing that the courts should refrain from utilizing contempt power to stifle the freedom of expression of citizens.

Additionally, the judge remarked that citizens, particularly those with limited knowledge of the inner workings of the judiciary, frequently express critical opinions about the judiciary on social media. While some of these statements may be unjustified, the courts should not expend their resources and time on such statements.

The High Court emphasized that in a democratic society that values freedom of speech, the judiciary should not seek refuge from criticism, whether justified or not. The power of contempt is not meant to be a tool for the court to protect itself but rather a means to safeguard public trust in the institution and maintain the dignity that stems from that trust. Contempt jurisprudence is fundamentally rooted in preserving public confidence in the courts and upholding the majesty of the judicial system, which is a direct consequence of that public confidence.

On January 14, 2021, during the magazine's annual gathering with its readers, Gurumurthy made a statement implying that government-appointed judicial appointments were often influenced by political convenience. However, he provided a clarification on the very next day, stating that he had no intention to insult or criticize the judiciary.

Lawyer S. Doraisamy had requested the then Advocate General Vijay Narayan's permission to initiate contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy. In March 2021, Narayan declined to grant consent, stating that when Gurumurthy's statements were considered in context, there was no apparent case for contempt.

Following a change in the government in the state, Doraisamy approached the current Attorney General, urging him to reconsider his predecessor's decision to decline consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy.

In September 2021, R Shunmugasundaram, who succeeded Vijay Narayan as Attorney General, reversed Narayan's decision and provided his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy.

Gurumurthy then engaged Senior Counsel Mahesh Jethmalani to represent him in approaching the High Court, arguing that the Attorney General did not have the authority to revoke the decision made by his predecessor, which had initially refused consent for contempt proceedings.

Case: S.Gurumurthy Vs. S.Doraisamy, W.P.No.2187 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.2355 & 14320 of 2022.