When judges make controversial remarks, the public notices. Whether it is a reference to a local area using a derogatory comparison or personal political preferences leaking into judicial comments, the public pays attention. Yet, while public servants in the executive or legislative branches face constant criticism, judges operate under a completely different set of rules. In India, judges receive their salaries, allowances, and pensions directly from taxpayers' money. Their job is to serve the public without fear or favour. However, when citizens or politicians criticise their actions, a powerful legal tool often gets deployed: Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This law, inherited from colonial rule, criminalises anything that "scandalises" or lowers the authority of the court. In modern democracies like the US, judicial figures are routinely scrutinised for their ideological leanings. But in India, open criticism can quickly lead to legal notices, mandatory apologies, or court action. Even procedural safeguards are changing. Normally, a private citizen needs consent from the Attorney General before filing a criminal contempt petition. Recently, courts have bypassed this requirement to hear third-party complaints directly. When those funded by the public are shielded from public critique, it raises a fundamental question about accountability in a modern democracy. The impact of these decisions will shape public discourse for years to come.