The Supreme Court of a supreme court is technically final and the supreme law of the land. However, a democratic system is based on checks and balances. The Supreme Court is comprised of humans which makes it fallible. Which is why, the judicial branch can be checked by the legislative and executive branches. So in that sense not just in India, a citizen of any democratic nation can move to challenge, question, critique a supreme court within a provided framework.
A case may be retried or a similar case maybe reinterpreted (Jim Crow laws overturned by Brown vs board of education) or a the legislature may be urged to push laws overturning/working around supreme court decisions (state sanctioned anti-abortion laws passed against Roe v. Wade).
Protesting/Questioning a decision is not contempt of court. Thousands protested when the US Supreme Court overturned Prop 8 and DOMA. That is also a constitutional right protected by free speech laws. Contempt of court occurs only during a trial or hearing when a person behaves against the expected decorum of the court.
These are US cases, but every democratic country has provisions to question or evolve Supreme Court decisions.
I have not seen the video.
However, it is not just Nidhi. In general, I believe we live an era of very poor journalism. Most reporters and interviewers display shoddy interview and reporting techniques. They will ask very leading or very narrow scope questions. They will badger and railroad people they disagree with and build up those whom they agree with. It is so bad, that I think Stephen Colbert actually maybe one of the few professional competent journalists left in the world.
I also think NaMo fans need to give Nidhi a break. Being against anti Modi doesn€™t automatically mean a Congress sock puppet or biased journalism. There have been those who found Gardiner dodgy and aggressive. They feel that Nidhi asked valid questions, but failed to competently keep Gardiner in check. A Rachel Maddow of sorts would be bitch slapping Gardiner left right and make him appear a fool. (Maddow is a very liberal slanted anchor).
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/nidhi-razdan-vs-barry-gardiner-a-spectacle-of-shamelessness-1038279.html
I don€™t care much for NaMo and I think UK owes a significant explanation on the banning and then overturning of NaMo in their country. Same question to any country that back tracks on their NaMo stances. Were they right then? Are they right now? When did they make a mistake? Can we trust the reliability of flip flopping governments?
