Spotlight: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court has recently delivered two significant rulings impacting press freedom, due process, and judicial integrity in India. In a landmark judgment, she quashed an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha, condemning the agency's actions as a "fishing and roving exercise" and an "arbitrary attack" on press freedom. Concurrently, while presiding over a vacation bench, Justice Krishna addressed the growing concern of online campaigns targeting the judiciary, directing social media platforms to promptly remove scandalous content and emphasizing their responsibility as intermediaries. These decisions underscore the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights and maintaining its independence against undue influence and baseless attacks.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court has recently garnered significant attention within India's legal fraternity for a series of impactful pronouncements. Her judgments, particularly one quashing a high-profile Enforcement Directorate (ED) case and another addressing online attacks against the judiciary, highlight critical aspects of constitutional law, due process, and the evolving challenges to judicial independence in the digital age. These rulings serve as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of legal processes.

The Delhi High Court's strong stance against what it termed a "fishing expedition" by the ED in the NewsClick case has been widely seen as a victory for press freedom and a reassertion of the principles of fair investigation. Simultaneously, the court's decisive action against malicious online campaigns targeting judges signals a firm resolve to protect the judiciary from unwarranted vilification. This article delves into the specifics of these judgments, examining their legal underpinnings, implications for practitioners, and broader significance for the Indian legal landscape.

The legal framework underpinning these judgments is multifaceted. The case involving NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha centered on allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Enacted to combat money laundering and confiscate property derived from illegal activities, the PMLA grants significant powers to the Enforcement Directorate, including the ability to investigate, attach property, and make arrests. A crucial aspect of PMLA proceedings is the requirement of a "predicate offence" – a scheduled criminal activity from which the proceeds of crime are alleged to have originated. Without a valid predicate offence, money laundering charges cannot stand.

Conversely, the Delhi High Court's action against online campaigns targeting the judiciary is rooted in the law of contempt of court. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines and limits the powers of courts to punish for contempt, categorizing it into civil and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt, as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, includes the publication of any matter or the doing of any act which "scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court," or "interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." Additionally, Article 215 of the Constitution of India explicitly grants High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves. This legal framework aims to preserve the dignity, authority, and effectiveness of the judiciary, ensuring that justice is administered without fear or favour.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna's judgment in the NewsClick case, delivered on May 29, 2026, and made available recently, represents a significant judicial intervention against potential overreach by investigative agencies. The Delhi High Court quashed both the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the subsequent Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED against PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt Ltd and its editor Prabir Purkayastha. The court found that even if all allegations were accepted, they failed to disclose any cognizable offence, thereby dismantling the legal basis for the entire investigation. Specifically, for the charge of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the court noted the absence of an aggrieved party, as the foreign investor had made no complaint. Similarly, for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, no entrustment of property was established.

Crucially, Justice Krishna held that the ED's invocation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was a "bald assertion" lacking evidence of an illegal objective or unlawful means. The court emphasized that money laundering charges under the PMLA cannot survive without a valid predicate offence, and with the quashing of the predicate FIR, the ECIR automatically became unsustainable. The judgment was particularly critical of the ED's prolonged investigation, which had led to Purkayastha's incarceration for approximately seven months, terming the agency's actions as a "fishing and roving exercise" and an "arbitrary attack and abuse of powers on the free and impartial journalism of the petitioners." This ruling reinforces the principles of due process, the necessity of a concrete legal basis for criminal investigations, and the protection of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

In a separate but equally vital development, Justice Krishna, sitting with Justice Madhu Jain, addressed the alarming trend of targeted online campaigns against members of the judiciary. While hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) against Dr. Kapil Kakar for allegedly posting scandalous videos blaming a sitting judge for a tragic building collapse, the bench issued strong directives. The court observed that such content, which attributed improper motives and serious allegations without lawful basis, prima facie scandalized the judiciary and interfered with the administration of justice. The bench unequivocally stated that while fair criticism of judicial orders is permissible, baseless accusations of corruption, collusion, or improper motives against judges are not legitimate criticism.

The Delhi High Court directed major social media platforms, including YouTube, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn, to immediately remove the offending content and block the accounts responsible. Significantly, the court underscored that intermediaries cannot remain "silent spectators" and are under an obligation to promptly remove unlawful and objectionable content that undermines judicial independence or maligns institutions and individuals, without waiting for specific court directions. This ruling sets a crucial precedent for the responsibilities of social media platforms in curbing the spread of defamatory and contemptuous material, reinforcing the judiciary's authority and protecting its members from unwarranted attacks in the digital sphere.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna's recent pronouncements from the Delhi High Court represent a robust affirmation of constitutional principles and judicial independence. Her decision to quash the ED's case against NewsClick serves as a critical check on the powers of investigative agencies, emphasizing the necessity of a strong legal foundation for prosecutions and safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of the press. This judgment will likely influence future PMLA cases, particularly those where the predicate offence is tenuous or unsubstantiated, compelling agencies to conduct more rigorous and legally sound investigations.

For legal practitioners, these rulings carry significant implications. In PMLA matters, the emphasis on the predicate offence and the condemnation of "fishing expeditions" provide stronger grounds for challenging the initiation and continuation of proceedings. In the realm of contempt of court, the directives to social media intermediaries highlight a growing area of litigation and a clear judicial expectation for platforms to actively police content that threatens judicial integrity. Practitioners must advise clients, both individuals and platforms, on the heightened responsibilities regarding online speech and the potential for swift judicial intervention. These judgments collectively signal a judiciary committed to protecting fundamental liberties and its own institutional integrity, demanding accountability from both state agencies and digital actors, and setting important precedents for the evolving legal landscape in India.