Contempt of Court in India: Balancing Judicial Authority and Free Speech

Contempt of court is a legal concept that addresses disobedience or disrespect towards a court and its authority. It serves to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and ensures compliance with court orders. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines contempt in two categories: civil and criminal. Understanding the necessity, implications, and criticisms surrounding contempt of court is crucial in assessing its role in maintaining the rule of law and judicial integrity.

Balancing Judicial Authority and Free Speech: An Examination of Contempt of Court

About Contempt of Court

• Definitions: It is referred to as the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court  of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: It defines Contempt of Court as Civil contempt or Criminal contempt: 
  • Civil Contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
  • Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
    • Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
    • Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
    • Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
• Criminal contempt: Publication of any matter or doing any act which-

Constitutional Provision

Need of Contempt Power

Arguments Against Contempt of Court Provisions

Impact on Free Speech and Expression: Contempt of court provision stifle free speech and expression

• Judicial accountability: In free democratic society criticism of the Judiciary is inevitable to hold it accountable. 
  • It should not be a matter of concern as long as it doesn’t obstruct Justice delivery.
• Vague grounds: Grounds such as scandalising the court are open-ended and prone to misuse.
• Against the Principle of Natural justice: No man should be the judge in his own case. 
  • But in contempt cases, Judges are a judge in their own cause.
•  International ractices:
  • UK: ‘Scandalising the court’ as a ground for criminal contempt was abolished in 2013.
  • Canada: The Courts are free to be criticised unless  there is an  imminent danger to justice delivery.
  • USA: Dignity of the Court will not be established and respected if free discussions about the Court were restricted on the pretext of preserving its duty.
• Period of Limitation: Despite the maximum duration for initiating contempt proceedings is one year, many of the contempt cases are pending for more than ten years.
• NCRWC: Contempt power and judicial review  are restricted to SC and HC only.
  • The contempt jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of the Judges.

Justifications for Contempt of Court Provisions

Law Commission: It says that there is not any requirement to amend the Act, due the reasons stated below :

• A High Number Of Contempt Cases: Justify the continuing relevance of the Act.
• Source Of Contempt Power: It flows from the Constitution. 
  • The Act only outlines the procedure for investigation and  punishment for contempt. 
  • Therefore, deletion will not have any impact.
• Impact On Subordinate Courts: High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts. 
  • If contempt definition is  narrowed, subordinate courts will suffer as there will be no remedy.
• Restrict Court Power: The 1971 Act lays down procedure which restricts the vast authority of the courts in wielding contempt powers. 
  • Amending the definition of contempt will lead to ambiguity.

• International Comparison:
  • The last offence of Scandalising the Court in the UK was in 1931. 
  • Whereas India continues to have a high number of criminal contempt cases.
  • The offence of Scandalising the Court  is punishable in the UK under other laws.

Suggestions

Reduce Discretion: Contempt power shall be made more determinate and principled.

• • Identify the Differences: The difference  between contempt of court and contempt of a judge.
  • Proportional Punishment: Punishment for contempt is inadequate and is not a sufficient deterrent. 
    • It should be sufficiently enhanced to deal with interference in justice delivery.
  • Baradanath Mishra v the Registrar of Orissa High Court : By this judgement, the court needs to check vilification of a judge in an individual category or in official capacity. 
    • If earlier then the Court has no power to commit contempt and the Judge shall consider private remedies.
  • Elements of ‘mens rea’: A legal concept denoting criminal intent or evil mind may be incorporated into the act.
    • Establishing the ‘mens rea’ of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

• Punishment shall be the last resort.

• The Role of Public Confidence: Public institutions in a free society must stand upon their own merits. 
  • They cannot withstand if their conduct does not command the community’s confidence. 
  • If their conduct justifies the respect of a community then they do not need the protection under contempt rules.

Conclusion

While contempt of court is essential for preserving the authority of the judiciary, it also raises concerns about freedom of speech and judicial accountability. 

• Striking a balance between upholding court dignity and allowing constructive criticism is vital for a healthy democracy. Ongoing discussions about reforming contempt laws aim to ensure that the judiciary remains respected without stifling public discourse. 
• Ultimately, public trust in judicial institutions hinges on their ability to act fairly and transparently.

DOWNLOAD PDF