Criticism of existing system should not be treated as condemnation: Justice Manmohan

# Criticism Isn’t Condemnation: Justice Manmohan

By Special Correspondent, Legal Affairs Desk | April 18, 2026

**New Delhi, April 18, 2026** — Emphasizing the vital role of constructive feedback in a vibrant democracy, Justice Manmohan stated on Saturday that criticizing the existing administrative and judicial systems must not be conflated with outright condemnation. Speaking at a prominent legal conclave in the national capital, the senior jurist addressed the growing friction between institutional accountability and freedom of expression. He argued that evaluating systemic flaws is absolutely essential for progressive judicial and administrative reforms, warning against the rising contemporary tendency to weaponize legal provisions or incite public backlash against genuine critics. [Source: Hindustan Times].

The remarks come at a crucial juncture in India’s legal evolution, sparking widespread discourse among legal luminaries, policymakers, and civil rights advocates about the boundaries of free speech and the necessity of institutional introspection.

## The Context of Justice Manmohan’s Remarks

Justice Manmohan’s observations were delivered against the backdrop of a rapidly changing socio-legal landscape in India. Over the past few years, the judiciary and the executive have introduced sweeping structural reforms, including the complete transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the integration of artificial intelligence into case management systems. While these reforms aim to streamline justice delivery, they have naturally drawn scrutiny from legal academics, practicing advocates, and the public.

During his address, Justice Manmohan highlighted that **institutions must possess “broad shoulders”** to absorb critique. He noted that when the system reacts defensively to suggestions or highlights of its inefficiencies, it inadvertently stifles innovation and reform. “To point out a flaw is not to condemn the edifice, but to offer a blueprint for its fortification,” he noted, urging stakeholders to cultivate a culture where dissent is viewed as a diagnostic tool rather than a destructive force. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: General Legal Context 2026].

## Navigating the Fine Line: Feedback vs. Contempt

One of the most persistent debates in Indian jurisprudence is the application of contempt of court laws. Historically, the line between “scandalizing the court” and offering legitimate academic or systemic criticism has been perilously thin. Justice Manmohan’s statements provide a much-needed philosophical clarification on this divide.

Legal experts have long argued that the archaic doctrines of contempt often create a chilling effect on journalistic and academic freedom. When critique is misinterpreted as condemnation, experts censor themselves, depriving the system of valuable external audits.

Dr. Meenakshi Iyer, a Senior Professor of Constitutional Law at the National Law University, weighed in on the significance of these remarks:
> *”Justice Manmohan’s distinction is legally profound. In a democratic republic, the ultimate sovereignty rests with the people. If the citizenry or the legal fraternity cannot point out structural bottlenecks—be it judicial pendency, procedural delays, or flawed administrative policies—without the fear of being labeled ‘anti-institutional,’ the system will inevitably stagnate.”*

The distinction drawn by Justice Manmohan aligns with the modern interpretation of **Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution**, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, subject only to reasonable restrictions. By officially recognizing that criticism is a mechanism of improvement, the judiciary signals a mature, self-assured posture.

## The Chilling Effect of Misinterpreting Dissent

The practical implications of conflating criticism with condemnation are severe. In recent years, numerous independent journalists, human rights advocates, and even whistleblowers within the bureaucratic machinery have faced severe pushback for publishing reports on institutional failures.

This phenomenon results in several negative outcomes:
* **Self-Censorship:** Fear of professional reprisal or legal harassment forces domain experts to withhold valuable insights.
* **Policy Echo Chambers:** Without external critique, policymakers operate in a vacuum, leading to the implementation of flawed frameworks that lack ground reality checks.
* **Erosion of Public Trust:** When an institution forcefully suppresses its critics, it inadvertently signals to the public that it has something to hide, thereby damaging its own credibility.

Justice Manmohan’s address serves as a judicial buffer against this chilling effect. By explicitly stating that the system should not treat criticism as an attack, he extends a layer of normative protection to those who engage in good-faith audits of public institutions. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Public domain legal analysis].

## The Role of Digital Media in Amplifying Polarization

The complexity of institutional critique has been exponentially magnified by the advent of digital media and algorithmic social networks. In the digital age, nuanced legal and administrative critiques are frequently stripped of their context, polarized, and presented as binary conflicts.

A thoughtful essay on judicial pendency can be rapidly distorted into a viral campaign accusing the judiciary of incompetence. This environment makes it incredibly difficult for institutions to separate the “signal” (genuine constructive feedback) from the “noise” (bad-faith trolling and political polarization).

Justice Manmohan acknowledged this modern difficulty but firmly maintained that institutions cannot use the toxicity of social media as an excuse to shut down legitimate discourse. The legal fraternity must develop the sophisticated capacity to filter digital noise while remaining highly receptive to the core structural critiques being raised by scholars, journalists, and citizens.

Senior Advocate Sameer Deshpande notes, *”The digital era requires institutions to be more transparent, not less. Justice Manmohan is essentially advising the system to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, social media can be vitriolic, but we cannot use that as a pretext to ignore the deeply researched, vital criticisms regarding our existing systems.”*

## Global Standards of Institutional Accountability

To fully appreciate the weight of Justice Manmohan’s comments, it is helpful to look at how different global democracies handle institutional criticism. The trend in advanced democratic jurisprudence is overwhelmingly toward minimizing contempt laws related to “scandalizing the institution” and maximizing protection for systemic critique.

| Jurisdiction | Approach to Institutional Criticism | Status of “Scandalizing the Court” |
| :— | :— | :— |
| **United Kingdom** | Highly tolerant of media and academic critique. Focuses on transparency. | Abolished as a criminal offense in 2013 under the Crime and Courts Act. |
| **United States** | Protected fiercely under the First Amendment. Institutions are subject to intense public audit. | Practically non-existent; requires proof of a “clear and present danger” to justice administration. |
| **India** | Evolving. Courts balance Article 19(1)(a) with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. | Still active, but senior jurists like Justice Manmohan are advocating for narrower application. |

The comparative data illustrates that India’s judiciary is currently navigating a transitional phase. Statements from high-ranking judicial officers emphasizing tolerance are critical stepping stones toward aligning India’s institutional culture with global best practices regarding freedom of expression. [Source: Public domain comparative constitutional law].

## Empowering the Next Generation of Legal Minds

Another critical dimension of the prevailing system’s approach to criticism pertains to legal education and the mentoring of young advocates. Law schools train students to deconstruct judgments, question precedents, and identify legislative loopholes. However, if these students enter a professional environment where pointing out systemic flaws is frowned upon or penalized, the entire purpose of critical legal education is defeated.

Justice Manmohan’s address serves as an encouraging mandate for the youth. By reinforcing that criticism is a valid and necessary component of legal practice, he empowers the next generation of lawyers to engage boldly with the system. They are encouraged to become architects of reform rather than passive participants in a flawed status quo.

Bar Councils and judicial academies are increasingly being called upon to integrate this philosophy into their training modules. Sensitizing magistrates, civil servants, and law enforcement officials to view petitions, public interest litigations (PILs), and academic audits as collaborative efforts rather than adversarial attacks will be crucial for the realization of this vision.

## Future Outlook: Institutionalizing Constructive Critique

Moving forward, the principles articulated by Justice Manmohan must transcend rhetoric and become institutionalized practice. Legal commentators suggest several actionable steps to ensure that criticism is utilized constructively rather than treated as condemnation:

1. **Revising Contempt Guidelines:** The Supreme Court and High Courts could issue clear, contemporary guidelines that explicitly exempt academic research, journalistic reporting, and good-faith public commentary from the purview of criminal contempt.
2. **Establishing Feedback Mechanisms:** Judicial and administrative bodies should create formal, secure channels for lawyers, litigants, and the public to submit feedback regarding systemic inefficiencies without fear of reprisal.
3. **Judicial Sensitization:** Continuous training programs for judges at all tiers, focusing on the sociology of free speech, the psychology of public critique, and the necessity of institutional humility.
4. **Protecting Whistleblowers:** Strengthening statutory protections for those who expose corruption or deep-seated inefficiencies within the existing administrative systems.

The judiciary is the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights in India. For it to protect the rights of the citizens effectively, it must continuously evolve, adapt, and correct its course. That correction is impossible in an environment devoid of criticism.

## Conclusion: A Blueprint for Democratic Maturity

Justice Manmohan’s assertion that **”criticism of the existing system should not be treated as condemnation”** is more than a passing remark; it is a vital constitutional reminder. It serves as a clarion call for institutional maturity, urging the pillars of democracy to shed defensiveness and embrace introspection. [Source: Hindustan Times].

As India looks toward the future, managing the delicate balance between maintaining institutional authority and fostering open, critical dialogue will define the resilience of its democracy. Institutions are not fragile monuments that shatter at the slightest critique; they are living frameworks designed to serve the people. By welcoming rigorous evaluation, the legal and administrative systems can ensure they remain robust, relevant, and deeply rooted in the pursuit of justice. Ultimately, an institution that listens to its critics is an institution that thrives.