Contempt of court

What is contempt of Court? In simpl terms, any act on the part of a person that either tend to lower the authority of the courts or interfers in the due administration of justice is referred to as the contempt of the court.

What amounts to contempt of court? Plainly speaking, contempt of court is not a single act or omission, but can embrace a number of instances in its ambit. As such, some of the following instances can constitute contempt of court.

No1. Insinuations derogatory to the diginity of the court which arw calculated to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the judges.

No.2. an attempt by one party to prejudice the court against the other party to the action.

No.3. to stir up pubic feelings on the question or matter pending for decision before the court and trying to influence the judges in ones favour.

No.4. an attempt to affect the minds of the judges and to deflect them from performing their duty by flattery or veiled threat.

No.5. an act or publication which scandalises the court by attributing dishonesty to a judge in the performance  or discharge of his functions or

No.6. wiilful disobedience or non compliance of the court’s order….

In short, we can argue that a contempt of court shall be committed when a court is scandalised by casting unwarranted, uncalled for or unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with due course of administration of justice. For instance, in a  noted case, the Supreme court charged the contemnor with contempt of court when he was found to have charged the court as an instrument of oppression and holding that the judges were guided and dominated by class hatered, instinctively favouring the rich as against the poor. According to the court such words tend to weaken the authority of the courts and will have the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people.

What does not amount to contempt? As held by the apex court itself that a fair, reasonable as well as the legitimate criticism of the judiciaery or for that matter, the conduct of a judge even in his judicial capacity does not constitute contemt of court and hence is very much permissible.

Is there any distinction between defamation and contempt of court?

It certainly does. Infact, when a judge is attacked personally, it may amount to defamation for which other remedies are available under law. However, when a defamatory attack on a judge is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper adminstration of law by the court, it certainly amounts to contempt of court.

In short, the test is; whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public at large.

Why this power? The only justification for the contempt power with the courtsis to safeguard the independence of the judiciary which is very vital for the maintenance of rule of law in the society.

As nicely summed up by the supreme court itself regarding the necessity of this power with the courts.

The court held: “ Availablity of an independent judiciary and an atmosphre wherein judges may act independenly and feralessly is the source of existence of civilisation in society. As such the writ issued by the court must be obeyed. It is the binding efficacy attaching with the commands of the court and the respect for the orders of the courtwhich deter the aggrieved persons from taking the law in their own hands because, they are assured of an efficacious yet a civilised method of settlement of dispites.

Any act or ommission therefore, which undermines the dignity of the court is therefore viewed with serious concern by the society and the courts treats it as an obligation to zealously guard against any onslaught on its diginity.”

What is the source of this power? The simple answer is: the constitution. Although, there is no explicit provision  or mention of this power in the constitution, but it is very implied from Article 129/215 for the Supreme court and the High courts respectively, Given thus, under  these provisions both the courts have been designated as the courts of record.

What is a court of Record? It carries two implications:

What are the types of Contempt?

The constitution does not classify any such types but the law of the parliament called as contempt of court Act which is a union subject . Accordingly, vide its section 2, it classifies contempts into a civil and criminal .

What is a civil contempt? Any wilful disobedience of a court orderto do or abstains from doing any act is characterised as a civil contempt. In other words, civil contempt arises when the power of the court is invoked or exercised to enforce obedience to court orders or decrees.

What is a criminal contempt? Being criminal in nature, it includfes such acts of publication either orally or written which are scandlous in nature. Besides this , acts such as outrages on judges in open court, defiant disobedience to the judges in the court or an act of intereference with the due course of justice or for that matter, any act which tends to prejudice the course of justice.

In the instant case, advocate, Prashant Bhushan had been convicted for criminal contempt for his contemptous publications in the form of two tweets, one of which was directed at the current CJI and other one on his predeccors as destroying democracy.

In an earlier case criminal contempt against a newspaper which published a report that two sons of a supreme court judge had been allotted petrol pumps by the minister concerned out of his discretionary quota. On verification, the news item was found to be incorrect. The court found the printer, publisher,editor as well as the reporter of the sid newpaper guilty of  criminal contempt.

Who can approach the court?

The court can take the cognisance of its contempt either suu moto as it did in the advocate Prashant Bhushan case or any citizen of india can bring it to the notice of the court. Even an advocate of the court as well. This position has been clarified under section 14 of the contempt of courts act according to which, the supreme court can take action against the contemnor for its criminal contempt in either of the following three ways:

No1. On its own motion i.e suo moto as mentioned above,

No.2. on the motion of the A.G or solicitor General

No.3. any other person but with the consent of the A.G or solicitor general. This means that if say, an ordinary citizen seeks to initiate proceedings for contempt of court, he must first seek the consent in writing of the A.G or solicitor General although judicial review of their refusal is available. Even the court can suo moto cognisance too in case of refusal too.

The way forward:

The only way forwars is the self restraint on the part of the court so that honest criticism of the court or its conduct may not be stifled.the judges should not be too sensitive to avoid being criticised for their conduct afterall in a democracy, a free market of ideas, opinions or views must be allowed to flourish.the sublime words of Lord Atkin ina noted case of: Ambard vs A.G for Trinidad and Tobago (1936) are quite reassuring:

“ Justice is not a cloistered virtue, she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful , even though, outspoken comments of ordinary men.”

Even our supreme court has itself held: “ in the free market  place of ideas , criticism about the judicial system or the judges should be welcomed so long as the criticisms do not impsir or hamper the administration of justice.”

Thank you