Contempt of court

Published on 16 Jan 2025

Contempt of court

Contempt of court can be defined as any individual’s act of disobedience or disrespect towards the court of law by defying the authority and dignity of the court. Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution confer the power upon the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish such acts of contempt.

Definition

The Constitution does not define the term Contempt. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines both civil and criminal contempt.

• Civil contempt refers to wilful disobedience to any judicial judgement.

• Criminal contempt can be invoked in the following cases

• An individual tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the court.

• Performs any action which obstructs the administration of justice.

• An individual tries to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings.

Issues associated with the power to punish for Contempt of Court

• Vagueness and Ambiguity: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been criticized for the broad definition and the subjective interpretation being misused by the judiciary.

• Example: The Criminal contempt provision of ‘attempt to lower the authority of court’ is highly subjective. 

• Against Freedom of Speech: Excessive use of contempt provision generates a sense of fear within the public and may self-censor themselves which is against freedom of expression.

• Example: Supreme Court initiated charges against Prashant Bhushan for tweeting that the role of the last four Chief Justices has had a negative impact on democracy.

• Lack of Accountability: The concept shields the judges from all criticism and thus makes them less accountable.

• Makes the judiciary hypersensitive: The wider scope of the legislation makes the judiciary sensitive to criticism and gets offended by silly actions.

• Example: Delhi High Court in Surya Prakash Khatri vs Madhu Trehan case held the owners of ‘Wah India’ magazine for surveying the lawyers and evaluating the work of judges of the High Court.

• Violating the Principle of Natural Justice: This could be seen as an attempt by judges to act for their own cause, thus violating the principle of natural justice.

Way Forward

• Follow judicial precedent: Following the principles laid down in the Mulgaonkar case which are aimed at clarifying a framework for understanding what constitutes contempt of court. The judgement mentions that

• Fair and honest criticism of the court’s action and judgement is not contempt, provided the criticism does not amount to an attack on the integrity of the judiciary.

• Contempt laws exist to protect the authority of the judiciary and not to protect judges from criticism.

• Contempt proceedings to be opted sparingly and should be proportionate.

Not to infringe freedom of speech: The contempt provision must be used sparingly and try to have a balance with the fundamental rights.

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
Indian Judiciary Contempt of court Article 129 Independence of judiciary

Syllabus:
General Studies Paper 2

Topics:
Functions of Judiciary