The Only Cure for Contempt Is Counter Contempt

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

As Franklin D. Roosevelt rightly said,

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely”

We all believe that among all the organs of the country, the judiciary is considered to be the one unprejudiced body which will safeguard the civil rights, as it is considered to be the main objective of any judicial system, not only that but it is also considered to be the central pillar of democracy, as the notion of freedom of speech and expression is intimately linked to the concept of democracy.

The contempt laws in India are one of the hazy legislation. The Contempt of Courts Act,1971 (the 1971 Act) defines contempt under Section 2 (a) which states, “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt, Clause (b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or another process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court: Clause (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

  1. scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
  2. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings’ or
  3. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

The definition of the contempt of the court in the 1971 Act is too exhaustive, as there are no settled precedent and rule of law which actually determines the offence of contempt, leaving discretionary powers in the hands of the judges to take cognizance when they feel the need for it, which clearly comes in conflict with the Fundamental Right of Speech and expression envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The discretion can be derived through cases to case basis which even has similar facts but different outcomes, such as E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar on 31 July 1970, the case was against EMS Namboodiripad, former Chief Minister of Kerala, who was convicted for contempt of court for saying that courts were biased in favor of the rich, similarly, In P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April 1988, the facts were that a Union cabinet minister had said that the Supreme Court sympathized with zamindars and bank magnates. He further said “FERA violators, bride burners, and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their haven in the Supreme Court” and that Supreme Court judges have “unconcealed sympathy for haven”.

Contempt of court petition was filed against the minister but no action was taken by the Supreme Court. A progressive example while entertaining a Contempt petition can be seen in the case of Rajesh Kumar Sing vs. High court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior where the alleged contemnor severely criticized judges for assigning themselves the task of resurrecting the judiciary’s dignity and observed that judges think the judiciary’s dignity is so brittle that it crashes the moment a judgment is criticized or a judge’s integrity is questioned. While dealing with the matter, Supreme Court judges, Justices RV Raveendran and Lokeshwara Singh Panta opined that “Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect… The court should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lower the authority of courts unless such intention is clearly established.” Such instances can be beautifully concluded by former Hon’ble Justice Mr. Markandey Katju, “What could be regarded as scandalous earlier may not be regarded as scandalous today and what could earlier be regarded as prejudicing or interfering with the course of justice may not be so regarded today.”

Recently, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, an eminent jurist was found guilty of criminal contempt, over a trivial tweet which involved facts and minimal criticism on the Chief Justice on India, the furious action and reaction of the Court has ignited the debate of Right to Freedom of expression and speech vis-a-vis Contempt of Court, the major question lies here is: A body which guarantees to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of the citizens, as envisaged by our Constitution of India, can be shaken over a trivial Social Media Post as it involves certain facts about the Chief Justice of India?

Another issue that arises herein is, the different judicial approach on the interpretation of contempt, when an alleged act/action/speech arises and creates friction between two non-judicial entities and on the other hand internally in the fraternity of legal system itself.
During the contempt proceeding hearing, Mr. Bhushan rightly submitted, “Open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order. We are living through that moment in our history when higher principles must trump routine obligations, when saving the constitutional order must not come in a way of discharging our responsibility towards the future. Failing to speak up would have been a dereliction of duty, especially for an officer of the court like myself.”

Why should Indian judges have to be so sensitive? While passing the judgment in, In Re Arundhati Roy, the court held, “A judicial dictatorship is a fearsome a prospect as a military dictatorship or any other form of totalitarian rule.” Should courts become intolerant of criticism or expressions of dissent, it would mark the beginning of degradation of the system of Rule of Law.

Rule of law says that the post created under the constitutional scheme and the individual serving the post are all eventually subject to the same principles of equality, fairness, freedom of speech and expression, recognition of dissent, as acknowledged under the scheme of the constitution for every citizen.

To draw close attention to the case, the picture of the Chief Justice of India on the motorcycle drew attention from not only media channels, print media but was also circulated as a humorous content, does the same amounts to Contempt of Court? Of course not!

On the contrary, When the House of Lords delivered the judgment in the 1987 Spycatcher case; a prominent newspaper published as of its headline “You Fools”. Fali Nariman, the eminent Indian lawyer, was in London at that time and he asked Lord Templeman who had delivered the majority judgment why the judges did not take action for contempt of court. Lord Templeman smiled and said that judges in England do not take notice of such comments.

The courts while initiating Contempt proceeding should consider the words of Lord Denning:

“Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.”


This article is written by Kapil Joshi, Counsel, Supreme Court of India, Founding partner, Kashi Nath Partners & Vibhuti Seth, Associate at Kashi Nath Partners, Commercial advisory, litigation and consultation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -