Contempt of Court and Judicial Accountability Debate: NCERT Controversy Explained

A controversy arose after an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook chapter on the judiciary referred to Corruption in the judicial system. 

• The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance, following which NCERT withdrew the book and issued an apology.

Constitutional Basis of Contempt Powers

• Article 129 (Supreme Court as a Court of Record): Empowers the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself, ensuring the authority and dignity of the highest court.
• Article 215 (High Courts as Courts of Record): Grants High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings.
• H.N. Sanyal Committee: The H.N. Sanyal Committee was constituted in 1963 to review the existing law on contempt of court. 
  • Its recommendations directly formed the basis of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This Act provides the statutory framework for defining and regulating civil and criminal contempt of court, ensuring protection of judicial authority and the administration of justice.

UPSC Online Preparation

Types of Contempt of Court

• Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders, judgments, directions, or breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal Contempt: Acts that interfere with the administration of justice, including:
  • Obstruction: Interfering with court proceedings or the administration of justice.
  • Prejudicing Fair Trial: Actions that prejudice or interfere with the due course of a pending judicial proceeding.
  • Scandalising the Court: Statements or publications that lower the authority of the court or erode public confidence in the judiciary. 

Judicial Power and Public Trust

• Limited Institutional Power: Drawing on the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the judiciary possesses “neither the sword nor the purse”, as coercive power lies with the executive and financial power with the legislature.
• Dependence on Public Trust: The authority of the judiciary rests primarily on public confidence, institutional credibility, and moral legitimacy rather than physical or financial power.
• Purpose of Criminal Contempt: The power of criminal contempt is meant to protect the authority of courts and ensure compliance with judicial orders by the executive and legislature.
• Institutional Safeguard, Not Personal Protection: Contempt powers are intended to protect the dignity of the judicial institution, not to serve the personal prestige or ego of individual judges. 

Judicial Perspectives on Criticism

• CJI Sabyasachi Mukharji: Emphasised that criticism of judicial delays should prompt introspection and institutional reform, rather than punishment of critics through contempt powers.
• CJI P.B. Gajendragadkar: Argued that judicial respect must be earned through fearless, impartial judgments, not enforced through anger or coercion.
• CJI S.P. Bharucha: In a case involving Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, he dropped contempt proceedings, remarking that the “shoulders of the court are broad enough” to bear criticism.
• Lord Denning (UK): Maintained that the best defence of the judiciary is its own conduct, and contempt powers should not be used to suppress legitimate criticism or free speech.
• Lord Templeman (UK): In the 1987 “Spycatcher” case, he declined to punish a newspaper for calling judges “old fools,” humorously noting that while his age was a fact, being a fool was merely the author’s opinion.

Click to Explore UPSC Offline Coaching

Judicial Review and Democracy

• Role of Judicial Review: The judiciary’s power of judicial review enables it to scrutinise laws passed by the legislature and actions of the executive, ensuring constitutional accountability and transparency.
• Protection of Institutional Authority: Reckless or malicious attempts to scandalise the judiciary can erode public trust, weakening its ability to effectively check other branches of government.
• Limits of Criticism: While fair, fact-based criticism of the judiciary is permissible in a democracy, criticism aimed at maliciously defaming the institution or undermining public confidence is not acceptable.

Internal Accountability and Corruption in the Judiciary

• Existence of Corruption: Even a few corrupt individuals within the judiciary can damage the credibility and public trust of the entire institution.
• Impeachment (Article 124(4)): The constitutional process for removing Supreme Court and High Court judges is lengthy, complex, and often politicised, making it rarely used.
• Transfers of Judges: Transferring a judge to another High Court may shift the problem geographically without addressing the underlying misconduct.
• In-house Inquiry Mechanism: The judiciary conducts internal investigations into allegations against judges (e.g., inquiries like that involving Justice Yashwant Varma), but such mechanisms may be ineffective if strong institutional resistance exists.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Strengthening internal accountability mechanisms and institutional safeguards is essential to prevent misconduct by a few individuals from tarnishing the judiciary’s credibility, while ensuring that judicial independence and public trust remain intact.

DOWNLOAD PDF