In news:

• Contempt of court, as a concept is back in the news after the proceeding by the Supreme Court of India, on its own motion, against a senior Delhi-based advocate-activist.

 

What is Contempt of Court?

• It seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority.

 

About contempt under the Indian law

• In India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, divides contempt into civil contempt and criminal contempt.

1. Civil contempt: It is a ‘wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court’.
2. Criminal contempt: It  is the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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.
• Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
• Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

 

Punishments for Contempt of Court

• The Supreme Court: In 1991, ruled that it has the power to punish for contempt not only of itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts and tribunals functioning in the entire country.
• The High Courts have been given special powers to punish contempt of subordinate courts, as per Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.

 

Need for Contempt Law:

• • To insulate the judiciary from unfair attacks and prevent a sudden fall in the judiciary’s reputation in the public eye.
  • It helps judges to do their duties of deciding cases without fear, favour, affection or ill will.

 

Issues with Contempt Law

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, while “contempt provisions” curb people’s freedom to speak against the court’s functioning.
• The law is very subjective which might be used by the judiciary arbitrarily to suppress their criticism by the public.
• For example, the assessment of the ground of scandalizing the court, depends, to a great degree, on the temperament and preference of the judge. What could be contempt to Judge A may not be contempt to Judge

 

Contempt of Court Act,1971

• The act defines the power of courts to punish for their contempt and regulates their procedure.
• It was amended in 2006 to include the defence of truth under Section 13 of the original legislation. Implying that the court must permit justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest.

 

Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006:

• The statute of 1971 has been amended by the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 to include the defence of truth under Section 13 of the original legislation.

Section 13: Restrict the powers of the court in that they were not to hold anyone in contempt unless it would substantially interfere with the due process of justice. The amendment further states that the court must permit ‘justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.’

 

Constitutional Background: Article 129: Grants Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. Article 142(2): Enables the Supreme Court to investigate and punish any person for its contempt. Article 215: Grants every High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.

 

How did the concept of contempt come into being?

• The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old.
• In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by him, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name.
• Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.
• Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

 

What does not account to contempt?

• Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court.
• Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.

 

Is truth a defence against a contempt charge?

• For many years, the truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt.
• There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution.
• The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence if it was in the public interest and was invoked in a bonafide.

 

Contempt laws in other countries:

• Already, contempt has practically become obsolete in foreign democracies, with jurisdictions recognising that it is an archaic law, designed for use in a bygone era, whose utility and necessity has long vanished.

1. Canada ties its test for contempt to real, substantial and immediate dangers to the administration.
2. American courts no longer use the law of contempt in response to comments on judges or legal matters.
3. In England, the legal position has evolved.