Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court and High Courts in India derive their powers to punish contempt from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively. These constitutional provisions empower the courts to penalize individuals for acts that scandalize the court, lower its authority, prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings, or interfere with the administration of justice.

The roots of contempt of court can be traced back to ancient times, emphasizing the need for an uninterrupted judicial process. The Indian judiciary is the bedrock of our democracy. It can only thrive if there is respect and adherence to its rulings. To safeguard this principle and ensure the smooth administration of justice, the concept of contempt of court exists. In 1963, the Sanyal Committee submitted a report after reviewing the law and procedures regarding contempt of court in India. It recommended that powers of the court to punish for contempt should be defined and the process for it be limited. For this, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.

In India, it is the Parliament which has the power to enact laws on Contempt of court as per Schedule 7, List 1 of the Constitution. It is broadly categorized into civil and criminal contempt. It is defined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as:-

• Civil contempt pertains to willful disobedience of a court order or judgment, or the breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal contempt encompasses written or spoken words or any act that scandalizes the court, lowers its authority, prejudices ongoing proceedings, or interferes with the administration of justice.

The contempt of court Act defines what is not contempt:-

• Innocent Publication & Distribution of Matter: If the person, at the time of publishing did not believe that the proceeding was pending.
• Fair & Accurate Reporting of Judicial Proceedings
• Fair criticism, or commentary on the merits of the case and judicial proceedings after it has been heard and decided.
• Complaint against officer of courts in proper forum.
• The statement is true and said with bona fides in public interest.

The Contempt of Courts Act states that:-

• defendant can request that a neutral judge should preside over proceedings instead of the one against whom contemptuous statements were made, so that it is a fair proceedings.
• defendant should be informed of the charges, given an opportunity to defend himself and present evidence.
• Defendant can also be released on bail.
• No proceedings should be undertaken unless the act substantially interferes with the course of justice.
• There is a right to appeal the order
• Limitation period of 1 year: meaning defendant cannot be prosecuted if the contempt act happened more than a year ago.

• Suo Moto: The Supreme Court & High Court can suo moto take cognizance as it has "inherent powers of the court" under the Constitution article 129 and 215 respectively.
• Permission of Attorney General: In cases where contempt is not initiated by the court suo moto, the Attorney General has the authority to grant permission or initiate proceedings. This ensures that contempt cases are handled with due diligence and are not frivolously brought to court. Additionally, private citizens who wish to initiate contempt proceedings must adhere to a rigorous process to prevent the filing of baseless petitions.
• Subordinate Courts: Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act also gives power to the High Courts to punish contempt of its subordinate courts through a motion by the Advocate General.

• The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 outlines the punishment
• Offenders can face imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, a fine of up to Rs. 2000, or both.
• Apology to the satisfaction of the court may lead to the discharge of contempt charges

Constitutional Validity and Freedom of Speech: The Constitution strikes a balance between freedom of speech of an individual under Article 19 and also reasonably restricts it under Article 19(2) to protect fair administration of justice. Hence, contempt of court is a valid reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech of an individuals.

Justice Krishna Iyer criticized the vague and uncertain jurisdiction of contempt laws, emphasizing the need to avoid encroaching on civil liberties.

• Vague Laws: Critics like Justice Krishna Iyer argue the law's unclear boundaries stifle free speech and "unwittingly trample upon civil liberties."
• Judges Not Above Criticism: Decisions of all branches of government face criticism, and shielding judges can create resentment and erode respect.
• Colonial Hangover: Critics see it as a remnant of British rule, as the UK itself abolished such laws.
• Overreach and Delays: Critics fear judges misuse the law and the high number of pending cases burdens the already strained judiciary. In 2018, Law Commission report noted that over 10,000 contempt cases are pending in all courts.
• Focus on Function, Not Ego: The purpose of contempt should be to ensure court function, not protect judges' feelings. Criticism aimed at improving the system should be tolerated.
• Public Figures Must Be Open to Scrutiny: Judges, as public figures, must accept fair criticism, even if harsh, as long as it's well-intentioned.

The objective of contempt of court provisions is to punish those who do not respect the orders of the court & speech that lowers the dignity of the court or interferes with the administration of justice. These powers are given in Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India for Supreme Court & High Court respectively. However, detailed guidelines and definitions are given in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Supreme Court in the Duda P.N. Case said that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint and reasonable criticism in "free market places of ideas" is acceptable as long as it does not impede the "administration of justice." It was reiterated by the Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud who said that the contempt powers should not be used to shield a judge from criticism. Frequent invocation of these powers will erode public trust as the judiciary is a public functionary open to criticism like any other. Hence, contempt powers should only be used to maintain dignity and ensure smooth functioning of court, not impede it.