What Is Contempt Of Court ?

Contempt of Court refers to actions that show disrespect or defiance towards judicial authority, aiming to uphold the integrity of the legal system. This doctrine ensures compliance with Court orders, prevents disruptions during legal proceedings, and balances the right to free speech with the respect owed to the judiciary. Governed by the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it includes two types: civil and criminal contempt, addressing disobedience of Court orders and actions undermining justice. Properly applied, it maintains public confidence in the judicial process.

Key Principles Of Contempt Of Court

The key principles of contempt of Court focuses on the following:

• Judicial Authority is Respected: The judiciary must be regarded as an institution that commands respect and obedience. Actions threatening this authority can undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
• Compliance with Court Orders: It is crucial for law's enforcement that the people and organisations must obey the decisions of the Court. Failure to respect Court orders would obstruct delivery of justice.
• Judicial Proceedings are Undisturbed: Contempt maintains the dignity of judicial proceedings by punishing acts that vitiate or attempt to influence the outcome.
• Freedom of Speech vs. Judicial Respect: Free speech is the fundamental right of a citizen, but so is the preservation of judicial dignity.

Legal Framework For Contempt Of Court In India

In India, contempt of Court is generally governed by the following:

• The Constitution of India (Article 129 and 215): These two articles empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. According to the Constitution, the dignity of these Courts forms the essential characteristic of the judicial institution.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This Act provides a statutory basis for classification, procedure and penalty in contempt of Court cases. It further defines “civil contempt” and “criminal contempt” along with procedures for initiation of contempt proceedings. The Act gives the Courts high powers with regard to maintaining their authority but has also put several protections in place to avoid frivolous or malicious contempt proceedings against any individual.

Types Of Contempt Of Courts In India

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for two types of contempts. These are as follows:

• Civil Contempt: Any willful disobedience of any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a Court, or any willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, amounts to Civil Contempt.
• Criminal Contempt: An act which brings or tends to bring the administration of justice into disrespect or contempt, or which interferes with or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, or which is conducive to or tends to facilitate crime, amounts to Criminal Contempt.

People Also Read : Civil and Criminal Contempt Of Court

Key Advantages Of Contempt Of Court

Contempt of Court performs the following vital functions in the Indian legal system:

• Maintains Judicial Autonomy: Powers to punish contempt ensure that the autonomy of the judiciary is maintained and its orders respected. This is important for ensuring public confidence in the judicial process.
• Facilitates in Delivery of Justice: By checking the non-obedience of judicial orders, contempt of Court ensures timely implementation of judgments so that justice can be delivered effectively.
• Protection to the Integrity of the Judiciary: It protects the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary. Contempt laws keep the judiciary free from interference, influence, and public disparagement.
• Ensures Court Proceedings Remain Unbiased: Right to punish for contempt acts as a deterrent against those actions which may interfere or prejudice judicial decision making.

Limitations And Challenges Of Contempt Of Court In India

Despite the aforesaid advantages, the notion of contempt of Court suffers several challenges and limitations in the Indian legal system:

• Ambiguity in Definition: In most cases, the lines drawn between “civil” and “criminal” contempt are confusing, hence subjects to inconsistent interpretation.
• Potential for Abuse: The contempt power can be used as a means of crushing the genuine dissent or criticism of the judiciary which violates freedom of speech and expression.
• Subjectivity in Application: Words like “scandalising the Court” are vague and allow the Courts much room for broad interpretation, leading to judicial overreaching.
• Conflicts with Freedom of Speech: Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression. It is extremely difficult to reconcile this right with protecting judicial authority.
• Underutilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The emphasis on punitive measures in the form of contempt proceedings may detract from the development of alternative mechanisms for ensuring compliance with Court orders.

Recent Developments In Contempt Of Court Law In India

Baradakanta Mishra vs. The Registrar Of Orissa High Court & Anr (1973)

The Court, referring to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, held that contempt of Court includes actions that:

• “scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower the authority of, any Court”
• “prejudice, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding”
• “interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner”

The Court found that definitions of contempt of Court as found in the Act had been derived from English law. It held that words “scandalise”, “lowering the authority of the Court”, “interference”, “obstruction”, and “administration of justice” must be construed according to their established meaning in the Indian legal system, with reference to English law, if required.

In Re: S. Mulgaokar vs. Unknown (1978)

The Court considered following factors in its decision to dismiss the contempt case:

• The Court observed the need to maintain a balance between free criticism and a fearless judicial process. It recognized the need for free speech and freedom of the press but weighed this against the need to save the judiciary from malicious attacks.
• There is a difference between personal attacks on judges and attacks on the administration of justice. The Court held that even if defamatory personal attacks on judges do not necessarily amount to contempt of Court, contempt occurs when the publication is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.
• The need to take into consideration the context and circumstances of the publication. The Court noted that the strain and excitement in the country at the time may have contributed to unusual comments in this publication.
• The need for judicial restraint in exercising the power of contempt. Contempt power must be exercised judiciously and only when necessary to protect the administration of justice.

In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002)

The Court held Arundhati Roy guilty of contempt of Court due to the scandalisation of the Court's authority with malicious intentions. According to the Court, though freedom of speech and expression forms part of the fundamental rights of a citizen, it is not immune from liability of contempt of Court. It was held that the statements made by Roy in her affidavit accusing the Court of entertaining an unsubstantiated petition and hushing up criticism, constituted a direct attack on the institution of the judiciary. In determining her guilt, the Court also considered her lack of remorse and her persistence in attempting to malign the judiciary.

The Court clarified the law of contempt of Court with the following:

• While the judiciary is subjected to fair and good faith criticism, citizens cannot be allowed to make comments that may undermine the dignity of the Court.
• Defamation law and contempt of Court are two independent concepts. In this regard, the Court noted that the law of contempt is not meant to protect the judges as individual persons but to protect public confidence in the judicial institutions.
• The Court was of the opinion that freedom of speech had to be balanced with the need for fearless judicial process.
• The Court added that criminal contempt has been defined by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and that this definition has been held to be constitutionally valid.

Justice C.S. Karnan vs. The Honourable Supreme Court Of India & Ors. (2017)

The Court held that Justice Karnan's acts of passing orders against judges of the Supreme Court and making insulting public comments against the judiciary were acts of contempt of the gravest nature.

The judgement highlights several important issues related to contempt of Court:

• Actions that amount to contempt: Disrespectful behaviour towards the Court, breaches of the order of Courts, and public statements against the authority of judiciary amounts to Courts' contempt.
• Seriousness of the offence: Contempt of Court is an offence of grave seriousness because it directly challenges the authority of the Court and can even obstruct the administration of justice.
• Inherent power of the Court to punish Contempt: The Court clarified that its power to punish contempt of Court is based on its inherent jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India. Such power is independent of and inclusive of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Procedural fairness in contempt proceedings: Even though the Court does enjoy inherent powers to punish for contempt, such power is subject to being exercised in a way that is fair and in observance of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Justice Karnan, the Court carefully recorded how he was given every opportunity to respond to allegations preferred against him, present his defence, and challenge the proceedings before him.

The case serves to illustrate the necessity of showing respect to the judiciary and the potential consequences of contemptuous conduct.

In Re Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2020)

The Court held that Prashant Bhushan, the alleged contemnor No. 1 was guilty of criminal contempt of Court for making two such tweets. The Court held that two tweets made by Bhushan could not be categorised as fair criticism of the judiciary made bona fide and in the public interest.

The Court held that the citizens have the right to comment upon judges and the judicial system but these rights have their limits. The Court held that criticisms seeking to undermine public confidence in the judicial system amounts to criminal contempt. The Court admitted that it should be magnanimous in responding to criticisms against judges and the judicial system. However, this cannot be extended to malicious attacks towards the foundation of the judiciary. The Court said that criticisms against the Supreme Court have to be handled sternly since these attacks inflict a concrete impact on the interest of the public.

The Court accepted the explanation provided by Twitter Inc., the alleged contemnor No. 2, that it is nothing but an intermediary platform with no control over the posts of users. The Court recognised the good faith of Twitter Inc. in suspending the tweets, after the Court took cognizance of the matter and discharged the notice issued to them.

This judgement underscores that the balance between freedom of speech and the need to preserve the integrity and authority of the judicial system can only be achieved on a fragile equilibrium. The Court reiterated that criticism is obviously essential in a democratic order, but it should not enter into the malicious attacks that corrode public confidence in the work of the justice system.

Key Takeaways from the Decisions

• The judiciary should maintain a balance between the powers to punish for contempt and the right to freedom of speech.
• Judicial restraint is given preference against the rigid application of contempt laws.
• The Judiciary has displayed a willingness to revisit the traditional interpretation of laws dealing with Contempt and what constitutes contempt.

Conclusion

Power to punish for Contempt of Court is one of the greatest tools for safeguarding the authority and dignity of the judiciary. India's legal framework, as laid out in the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, empowers the Courts with such powers that could be helpful in dealing with actions that may hinder justice. The concept, however, needs to be implemented with fine-tuned sensibility to not go against the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Recent judicial pronouncements provide for restraint and tolerance while exercising contempt powers, forming a significant shift toward a more balanced exercise of the said powers.