This Article Is Written By Ayush Kumar, 4th Yr B.ALL.B University Of Lucknow, Lucknow, During Internship At Ledroit India.
Keywords
Contempt of Court, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Criminal Contempt, Civil Contempt, Fair Criticism, Judicial Accountability, Article 19(1)(a), Article 129 & 215 (Constitution of India), Prashant Bhushan Case
Abstract
A legal tool intended to preserve the honour, power, and efficiency of the judiciary is contempt of court. It acts as a protection to ensure that justice is administered, shielding courts from acts that hinder or undermine their ability to do their jobs. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech and expression, which is often in conflict with this authority. The delicate balance between upholding democratic liberties and preserving judicial power is examined in this essay, particularly in relation to reasonable criticism of court rulings. The difference between criminal and civil contempt is important because criminal contempt comprises acts that embarrass the court or obstruct the administration of justice, whereas civil contempt deals with disregard for court orders. The essay explores the current interpretation of contempt powers by courts, referencing case laws like Prashant Bhushan and Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh. Additionally, it compares countries throughout the world, examining how countries like the United States and the United Kingdom define and govern contempt, frequently with more pronounced protections for free speech. The study examines the wide range of contempt in India from the perspectives of justice and judicial accountability, and it makes the need for more distinct lines to differentiate between harmful assaults and helpful criticism. In order to ensure that neither the freedom of expression nor the integrity of the legal system are overly jeopardized, the article’s conclusion highlights the necessity of upholding fair criticism as a democratic right while preserving judicial respect.
Overview: The Function Of The Judiciary And The Idea Of Contempt
The preservation of basic rights, equality before the law, and justice are all made possible by the court, which is essential to maintaining constitutional administration. The courts must have power, impartiality, and respect in order to carry out their role. Civil or criminal activities that deny the court’s jurisdiction or obstruct the administration of justice are deemed contempt of court under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This legislative provision is intended to protect the integrity and efficacy of the judicial system as a whole, not to protect judges individually. A democracy where the rule of law is upheld must preserve the judiciary’s power and dignity. Without regard for the court’s rulings and procedures, the entire legal system runs the risk of disintegrating. The courts’ authority to penalize for contempt, granted by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, serves as a check on deliberate disobedience and slanderous assaults that might damage public confidence. Such power guarantees that justice is carried out and perceived as carried out without hindrance or coercion.
This legal power is based on natural justice and the rule of law. While natural justice requires fair hearings and unbiased judgment, the rule of law requires adherence to legal procedures and respect for institutional obligations. These fundamental values are violated when people openly violate court orders or publicly disparage legal proceedings without supporting evidence. Therefore, the judiciary’s power to defend these ideals against attempts to subvert them is strengthened by contempt legislation. However, under Article 19(1)(a), the basic right to freedom of expression and this enforcement authority are in ethical conflict.
In a democratic society, honest criticism of the judiciary is acceptable and even required; yet, the courts must continually strike a balance between this freedom and the requirement to preserve judicial independence and authority. Prashant Bhushan and other cases illustrate this contradiction, igniting crucial discussions about whether contempt laws are being exploited to stifle dissent or to rightfully shield the institution from unwarranted injury. This conflict illustrates the continuous difficulty of maintaining accountability without stifling helpful public criticism.
The Constitutional Framework and Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Expression An impasse
Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and expression, according to Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This freedom, which enables people to publicly criticize and express their thoughts, is seen to be essential for a democracy to survive. “Speech and Expression” has a wide-ranging and unrestricted definition, which encompasses the freedom to communicate thoughts and viewpoints in any way, whether it be orally, in writing, print, art, or gesture. It also includes conveying concepts via visual aids or other expressive channels. There are several uses for this basic right, such as freedom of the press and the right to information. Section 5 of this Act, however, does not consider fair criticism to be contempt.
The goal of judicial interpretations is to bring judicial autonomy and free expression into harmony. The Constitution’s Article 19(2) permits reasonable limitations on the right to free expression. Although a democracy needs constructive criticism to thrive, it may occasionally degenerate into contempt and humiliation, which suggests that restrictions are essential. According to the 1971 Contempt of Court Act, courts have the right to penalize those whose criticism undermines a judge’s authority or impedes the administration of justice.Both the freedom of expression and the right to independent justice were intended to be fulfilled by the 1971 Contempt of Court Act. The act describes the definition of contempt, its kinds, the activities that are not deemed contempt, the authority of courts to deal with it, the penalties for it, and the process for bringing someone to court for contempt. Contempt is punishable by the Supreme Court and the High Courts by default.
ILLUSTRATION: The Prashant Bhushan case is a well-known instance of both freedom of expression and contempt of court. A image of S.A. Bobde, the Chief Justice of India at the time, was tweeted by civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan on June 29, 2020, in which he was criticized for riding a 50 lakh motorbike without a mask or helmet while the Supreme Court was under lockdown, depriving residents of access to justice. It was decided that this tweet constituted a grave instance of disrespect and an effort to undermine the Apex Court’s honour. The three-judge panel found Mr. Bhushan guilty of contempt of court on August 14, 2020, citing his “scandalous” and “scurrilous” comments as not being fair criticism. As per the court’s ruling, Bhushan’s tweet was deemed “patently false” and had the potential to erode public trust in the courts. Supporters of Bhushan, including politicians, attorneys, retired judges, and civil society organizations, were outraged by this ruling and denounced it as an effort to quell dissent. Opponents said that this ruling violated the basic right to free speech and expression. They emphasized that a court must be convinced that there was an obstruction to the administration of justice in order to penalize for contempt under Section 13, and that the truth that was raised in the public interest may be a legitimate defence. It was maintained in the Prashant Bhushan case that neither an act against the public interest nor an obstruction of justice had occurred. As required by Article 142(2), the court was condemned for not considering whether the tweets substantially hampered the administration of justice and for not using a procedural criteria for imposing a contempt sentence. Furthermore, the court allegedly ignored the “truth” defence allowed by Section 13(b) of the Contempt of Court Act.
Types of Contempt: Civil and Criminal Dimensions.
Disobeying court instructions is considered civil contempt.
The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines civil contempt in Section 2(b). Willful violation of a court-issued undertaking or willful disregard for any court-issued judgment, decree, order, writ, or other procedure are also included in this term. “Willful” connotes a deliberate and planned deed or omission. It is not enough to be found in contempt for inadvertent disobedience. The provisions of the order or undertaking must be obvious and clear, yet the court must be convinced that the disobedience nonetheless took place. Additionally, the undertaking must be provided to the court, not simply the opposing party involved in the legal proceedings. In the concept of civil contempt, the Gujarat High Court has made it clear that a “direction” is only a judicial order against a party and not an administrative order. In civil contempt, if the main processes are completed, the accusations are dismissed.
Criminal Contempt: Disgrace the court, taint proceedings, and obstruct the administration of justice. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines criminal contempt. In general, it refers to any behaviour that encourages disdain, contempt, or scorn for the authority and administration of the law. It also encompasses acts that hinder or tend to hinder the administration of justice, or that interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants, or witnesses during litigation. It is deemed criminal in character if the contempt entails harm to the public or crime.
According to Section 2(c), there are three primary types of criminal contempt:
1) Disseminating any content that may cause controversy or undermine the authority of any court, or that may cause scandal.
2) Publishing any information or doing any other action that might impede or interfere with the proper conduct of legal proceedings.
3) Publishing anything that interferes with or tries to interfere with the In addition, there are two types of criminal contempt: direct contempt (to the court) and indirect/constructive contempt (to others).administration of justice, or engaging in any other action that does so. This section uses the term “publication” to refer to any spoken or written phrase, symbol, or visual depiction. The act of disparaging judges or the judiciary is known as “scandalizing the court.” Even if the primary procedure is over, the criminal contempt charge is still in effect.
Examples of case laws demonstrating both kinds: In Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of Munsiff, Kamrup, a person was found guilty of civil contempt for deliberately disobeying an order that prevented aid, indicating that they were aware of the order.
A false affidavit that mislead the court was deemed to be civil contempt in U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, which constituted a breach of the undertaking.
In the historic criminal contempt case of Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh, a lawyer threatened the legal system and maybe embarrassed the court by making derogatory and scandalous attacks on a High Court judge.
Section 5 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act Of 1971 Permits Fair Criticism
It is clearly stated in Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that honest criticism is not a form of contempt. For a democracy to thrive, constructive criticism is seen as essential and ought to be promoted. There is a thin line, nevertheless, between constructive criticism and disrespecting the court; the latter impairs the court’s and judges’ honour.
Judicial accountability is ethically important in democracies.
As one of the three most crucial pillars of the union government, the judiciary strives to uphold the court’s integrity and sanctity while delivering justice to the populace. The value of free speech is found in its capacity to foster intellectual development, advance society, and hold the powerful accountable. Citizens must be able to freely criticize and voice their thoughts for a democracy to function. The courts also have an obligation to be perceptive and receptive to reasonable criticism, since this will increase public trust and make them more accessible to the general public.
What Constitutes Contempt in Criticism? It is necessary to establish a boundary between criticism and disdain when it manifests as disrespect and humiliation. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 empowers courts to penalize anybody whose criticism undermines a judge’s authority or obstructs the administration of justice. The Act’s Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt, which encompasses:
1) publication of anything that has the potential to cause controversy, undermine the authority of any court, or both.
2) publication of any information or actions that negatively impact, impede, or have the potential to impede the proper conduct of any legal proceedings.
3) publishing any material that obstructs, obstructs, or threatens to obstruct the administration of justice.
Specifically, scandalizing the court refers to aggressive criticism of judges or the legal system. Criminal contempt serves as a precaution against unwarranted verbal abuse of the judiciary that might damage its reputation.
Judicial Intolerance Vs Public Confidence
A conflict between the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary and the right to free expression is highlighted by the delicate relationship between the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 and freedom of speech. Despite being protected by the Constitution, the right to free speech and expression can be reasonably restricted, particularly by laws against contempt.
In order to guarantee that justice is served promptly and that the judiciary and its procedures run smoothly, the statute of contempt was created. The goal of contempt legislation is to ensure that justice is administered, not to give the court greater authority than other branches of government. One should not utilize these powers carelessly. It’s a two-way process in which courts and people who approach them must make sure that court procedures are not interfered with, that everyone is treated fairly, and that the judiciary and court are kept dignified.
Reforming the Contempt Law: Need for Clarity and Accountability
Due to its vague definitions and broad discretionary powers granted to judges, India’s current system of contempt laws, particularly the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, has regularly come under fire. In the sake of upholding judicial dignity, this ambiguity allows for subjective interpretations, which can occasionally silence reasonable criticism and dissent. Legislative reforms that outline precisely what is meant by “scandalizing the court” and “interfering with justice” are desperately needed to remedy this. It is also necessary to establish legal rules that differentiate between constructive public inquiry and malevolent intent. Accountability is the lifeblood of a robust democracy, and the courts must be free to feel threatened by reasonable and well-informed criticism. In order to preserve this equilibrium, the legal community, civil society, and the media all play a crucial role in fostering openness, educating the public, and pushing for changes that protect both freedom of expression and judicial respect without sacrificing one for the other.
Conclusion
Conclusively, regulations against contempt of court are necessary to maintain the judiciary’s authority and dignity, but they shouldn’t be applied to silence valid criticism. The preservation of judicial independence and democratic liberties requires a clear differentiation between legitimate criticism and real contempt. By updating outmoded clauses and guaranteeing accountability via openness, the public’s faith in the legal system will grow. It is crucial to carefully preserve the equilibrium between judicial integrity and free expression. Ultimately, when both are upheld with honesty and fairness, justice and democracy coexist.
References
- High Court Of Madras Versus In Re Suo Motu Contempt Suo Motu Criminal Contempt No. 791 Of 2020.
- Civil Court, Patna City, Patna … Petitioner; Versus Gopal Prasad Singh & Ors. … Contemnors. Or. Cr. Misc. (Db) No. 3 Of 2002.
- Vitusah Oberoi And Others.. Appellants;
Versus
Court Of Its Motion.. Respondent Criminal Appeals No. 1234 Of 2007 With No. 1299 Of 2007,
- In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2020)
- SCC online https://www.scconline.com/Members/Dashboard.aspx
Manupatra https://articles.manupatra.com/
