Contempt of Court in India

Syllabus: GS2/Judiciary

Context

• The recent controversy over alleged remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court has sparked concerns about undermining the court’s authority and obstructing the administration of justice, prompting calls for contempt proceedings.

Contempt of Court

• Overview: 
  • The concept of contempt refers to disobedience to or disrespect for the authority of a court or legislative body.
  • The Contempt of Court involves behavior that opposes, defies, or undermines the dignity and authority of the court, such as willful disobedience of a court order, interfering with judicial proceedings, or acting in a way that lowers the court’s authority.
• Origin: 
  • The idea of contempt of court evolved as a common law principle in England to protect the judicial power of the king, that was initially exercised by the monarch himself, and later by judges acting in his name.
    • Any disobedience of a judge’s order was seen as an affront to the king.
  • In India, pre-Independence laws of contempt existed in both British Indian courts and some princely states.
    • After Independence, the Constitution of India retained the principle of ‘Contempt of Court’.
• Types: The Parliament of India enacted the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 giving statutory power, classifying the contempt into two broad categories:
  • Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)): Wilful disobedience of a court order or breach of an undertaking given to the court.
  • Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)): Publication or act that — scandalises or lowers the authority of any court; prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings; or Obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Cases

• The Supreme Court and High Courts are designated as ‘courts of record’ (Articles 129 and 215), empowering them to punish for contempt of themselves. Key Judicial Interpretation  are:
  • Ashwini Kumar Ghosh vs. Arabinda Bose (1952): It established that fair criticism of a judgment is permissible.
  • Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh (2002): It stressed that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with restraint and only in clear cases of violation.
  • MV Jayarajan vs. High Court of Kerala (2015): It upheld a contempt finding against a person who used abusive language against a court order in a public speech, reaffirming that such acts can amount to criminal contempt.
• Recently, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that the purpose of contempt law is to ensure the smooth administration of justice, not to protect individual judges.

What Does Not Amount To Contempt?

• Fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings;.
• Fair and reasoned criticism of a judicial order after disposal of a case (protected under free speech);
• The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006, added that truth became a valid defence if:
  • It is made in public interest, and;
  • It is expressed in good faith (bona fide).

Punishment for Contempt

• Simple imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both.
  • However, the courts often prefer apology and reform over punishment, using imprisonment only as a last resort.

Conclusion

• The contempt law remains a delicate balance between protecting judicial authority and preserving free expression. 
• As India’s democracy matures, the focus needs to shift from shielding judges’ egos to ensuring accountable, transparent, and respected justice delivery — where dignity and dissent coexist harmoniously.

Source: TH