In re : S.Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCC 339, Court said that judiciary cannot be immune from criticism, but, when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for judiciary and destroy public confidence, it cannot be ignored. When there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which may damage confidence in judicial system and demoralize Judges by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed.
In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348, Court observed that normally, no Judge takes action for in facie curiae contempt against lawyer unless he is impelled to do so. It is not the heat generated in the arguments but the language used, the tone and the manner in which it is expressed and intention behind using it which determine whether it was calculated to insult, show disrespect, to overbear and overawe the Court and to threaten and obstruct the course of justice. It was also observed that making allegations or aspersions on the integrity of Judge is not to be misunderstood as an outspoken fearless attitude of an advocate. Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of intemperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat, an argument. Humility is not servility and Courtesy and politeness are not lack of dignity. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society. If judiciary is to perform its duties and its functions effectively, and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of judiciary is trust and confidence of people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for authority of Court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of judicial system gets eroded.