The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order sentencing a Navi Mumbai woman for criminal contempt in Vineeta Srinandan vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay case.

Background of the Case

• Derogatory Circular Issued: A housing society director circulated a notice referring to judges as part of a “dog mafia” during litigation over feeding stray dogs.
• High Court’s Suo Motu Action: The Bombay High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, holding that her remarks interfered with the administration of justice.
  • The High Court sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000, rejecting her apology as insincere.
• Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, observing that contempt power is not a judge’s personal armour.
• Emphasis on Remorse: The Supreme Court noted her early unconditional remorse and stressed that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (1971) allows sentence remission upon bona fide apology.

About Contempt of Court 

• Contempt of court refers to acts that undermine the dignity, authority, or effective functioning of the judiciary. 
• The objective is to maintain public confidence in the justice system, ensure compliance with judicial orders, and protect the independence of courts from attacks that may obstruct justice.
• Examples of  Contempt of Court:
  • Casting defamatory allegations against judges.
  • Influencing witnesses or public opinion on ongoing cases.
  • Disrupting court proceedings.

Types of Contempt of Court

• Civil Contempt: “Wilful disobedience” of any judgment, decree, direction, order of a court or breach of any undertaking given to a court.

• • Disobedience must be wilful, not accidental or due to genuine inability.
  • Used to ensure compliance with court orders (e.g., government orders, service matters, compensation cases).
• Criminal Contempt: Refers to publication or act that:
  • Scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of a court; or
  • Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings; or
  • Obstructs the administration of justice.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

• Constitutional Basis
  • Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court as a “Court of Record” with the power to punish for contempt of itself.
  • Article 215: Declares every High Court as a Court of Record with the power to punish for contempt.
    • These powers are inherent, meaning they exist even without a statute.
• Statutory Framework
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed to define and limit the powers of courts regarding contempt, balancing judicial authority with freedom of speech.
  • Punishment (Section 12)
    • Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or
    • Fine up to ₹2,000, or both.
    • Courts may discharge the contemnor or remit punishment if they offer an apology that is bona fide (not as a “weapon of defence”).
• Defences and Exceptions: The Act recognises certain safeguards to protect free speech:
  • Justification by Truth: Truth can be used as a defence if:
    • It is in public interest, and
    • It is bona fide (not malicious).
  • The Act provides Safeguards such as
    • Fair Criticism: Fair, reasonable, and respectful criticism of judicial acts or judgments is not contempt.
    • Innocent Publication: Publication without knowledge of pending proceedings is excused.
    • Fair and Accurate Reporting: Publishing accurate court orders or proceedings is not contempt.

Procedure for Contempt of Court 

• Cognizance Routes: Courts may initiate criminal contempt  through three routes 
  • suo motu
  • On a motion by the Advocate-General,
  • By any person with written consent of the Advocate-General 
• Contempt in the Face of Court (Section 14): If misconduct occurs directly before the SC or HC, the court conducts an immediate summary proceeding after informing the contemnor of charges and providing an opportunity to defend.
• Notice, Hearing and Evidence: For other contempt, the court issues notice, allows representation through counsel, examines affidavits/evidence, and ensures adherence to natural justice.

Judicial Precedence

• Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952): Clarified that fair and reasonable criticism of the judiciary is permissible, but remarks that undermine public confidence amount to contempt.
• Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953): Ruled that criminal contempt does not require proof of actual obstruction; even a tendency to lower judicial authority is sufficient.
• Baradanath Mishra v. Registrar, Orissa High Court (1974): It held that personal vilification of a judge does not amount to contempt unless it interferes with judicial functioning, making civil action the proper remedy.
• Pritam Lal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (1992): It held that contempt must be punished wherever necessary to maintain the dignity and authority essential for the administration of justice.
• MV Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015): The Supreme Court held that publicly using abusive or insulting language against judges constitutes criminal contempt as it weakens institutional authority.
• Shanmugam v. Madras High Court (2025): It emphasized that contempt powers exist to protect the integrity of justice delivery, not to shield judges from personal insults or criticism.

Rationale Behind Contempt of Court

• Protecting Judicial Authority: Contempt powers ensure that judicial pronouncements are obeyed, thereby preserving the moral and institutional authority of courts.
  • Without enforceability, judgments would become advisory, weakening the judiciary’s role as the final arbiter of rights.
• Ensuring Rule of Law: Compliance with court orders is necessary to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and prevent executive arbitrariness.
  • The Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) held that contempt power is integral to maintaining the rule of law.
• Safeguarding Judicial Independence: Contempt provisions shield judges from baseless allegations, intimidation, or scandalisation, allowing them to decide cases impartially.
  • In the In Re Arundhati Roy (2002), the Court emphasized that unfounded attacks on judges erode public confidence in judicial independence.
• Ensuring Administration of Justice: Contempt power deters conduct inside or outside court that disrupts proceedings or prejudices fair adjudication.
  • Activities such as influencing witnesses, disrupting hearings, or publishing prejudicial material threaten the fairness and integrity of justice delivery.
• Maintaining Public Trust: A credible justice system requires public confidence; contempt jurisdiction is invoked to protect the judiciary’s image from deliberate attempts to erode trust.
  • In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970), the Court held that scurrilous attacks on judges weaken the faith of citizens in the administration of justice.

Criticism of Contempt of  Court

• Threat to Free Speech: The wide interpretation of criminal contempt, especially the offence of “scandalising the court,” can suppress legitimate criticism of judicial functioning.
  • The controversy in MV Jayarajan (2010) highlighted how criticism of judicial actions may be construed as contempt even when it raises issues of accountability.
  • This tension between Article 19(1)(a) and contempt restrictions under Article 19(2) often results in an overbroad limitation on free expression.
• Vague Interpretation: The concept of “scandalising the court” lacks clear definition, enabling inconsistent interpretation and selective application.
  • Law Commissions (200th Report & 274th Report) observed that the offence is outdated and susceptible to misuse.
  • Absence of measurable criteria can lead to perception-based prosecutions rather than objective harm to justice delivery.
• Conflict of interest: Contempt proceedings often involve judges adjudicating matters concerning allegations against themselves, raising concerns of bias and violation of natural justice.
  • During Justice C.S. Karnan’s contempt proceedings (2017), critics argued that the same institution whose authority was questioned conducted the trial, creating an inherent conflict of interest.
• Chilling Effect on Accountability: Fear of contempt discourages journalists, academics, and civil society from exposing judicial shortcomings or engaging in critical evaluation of judgments.
  • Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer emphasizes that excessive sensitivity to criticism inhibits public debate, which is essential for democratic oversight.
• Procedural Delays Undermine Purpose: Despite the statutory one-year limit for initiating proceedings (Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), contempt cases often linger for years, defeating urgency and enabling arbitrariness.
  • Multiple instances including prolonged contempt actions against government officials show that delayed enforcement dilutes deterrence and clogs higher courts.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward 

• Clearer Definitions: Narrowing the scope of “scandalising the court” and codifying objective criteria will prevent misuse.
• Differentiate Judge and Institution: Criticism targeting a judge personally should be distinguished from attacks on judicial functioning, ensuring proportional response.
• Strengthen Truth and Public Interest Defence: Implementing a robust truth defence under Section 13 can safeguard evidence-based criticism and enhance accountability.
• Use Contempt Power as Last Resort: Courts should prioritise warnings, guidance, and reconciliation before imposing penalties.
  • The UK abolished “scandalising the court” in 2013, citing redundancy and incompatibility with modern free-speech norms.
• Promote Judicial Transparency and Communication: Issuing reasoned responses and fostering openness can naturally build respect without frequent invocation of contempt.

Conclusion

A balanced contempt framework must protect judicial authority without curbing free speech, ensuring that accountability, dignity, and democratic openness coexist within India’s justice system.

DOWNLOAD PDF