5 Important Judgements related to Contempt of Court

After the Supreme Court of India recently took Suo Moto cognizance against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, for two of his ‘tweets’ (views expressed over social media website: Twitter) on the “role of the Supreme Court in the destruction of democracy during the last 6 years”, and an unsolicited comment on a picture of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) astride a bike. Since the Court’s decision to take cognizance, there has been a huge uproar in the civil society about the “biased” and “unprofessional” manner in which the Apex court has been functioning and how Contempt of Court is being used a tool to shut its critiques. Contempt of Court is distinctly defined under section 2 of the Code of Contempt Act, 1971, which divides Contempt into Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. The section further defines them as:

“(b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

(c) ‘criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”

Constitution of India also under its articles 129 and 142 also confers power on the Supreme Court, to punish those who act in an unruly or contentious manner. However, the provisions have been interpreted differently in varied circumstances and has resultantly developed a jurisprudence in itself. 5 important judgements related to Contempt of Court are as follows:

1. Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar [AIR 1992 SC 904]

The Court in the present case determining the ambit of discretion of the Supreme Court while deciding cases of contempt, held that as Supreme Court and High Courts are court of record, they have special jurisdiction as propounded under articles 129 and 215 and have an inherent power to decide upon cases of contempt. The court also held that as it is a “constitutionally vested right”, it cannot be either “abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down”. The court also disregarded the authority of the Procedural laws and rules and held that their powers can’t “be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules”. However, the court was cautious enough and safeguarded the contemnor’s as well and propounded that this “inherent power by summary procedure is that the power should be used sparingly, that the procedure to be followed should be fair and that the contemnor should be made aware of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself”.

2. R.N. Dey and Ors. v. Bhagya Bhati Pramanik and Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 400]

The court in this case clearly propounded that “weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused”. The court further held that the remedy of contempt cannot be used to get a decree executed or to get an order implemented, as and when an alternate remedy is available with the party. In its judgement the court also expressed that the provision of Contempt “is to be exercised for maintenance of Courts dignity and majesty of law”. Hence, an aggrieved party can’t assert the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor as “contempt is between a contemnor and the Court”.

3. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie [Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 11 of 1990] and [Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 12 of 1990]

The court in this case held that if a speech or article, editorial articulated by a person, appears to be contemptuous to the Honourable court, then the accused should shall have the defence of “truth” available with him/her, unless the court is of the opinion that the defence “is only a camouflage to escape the consequences of deliberate or malicious attempt to scandalize the court or is an interference with the administration of justice”.

4. Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal [2011 Cri LJ 102 (SC)]

The Apex court in this particular case decided upon the press’s freedom to criticise a judgement. The court held that press freedom is incorporated in the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a), wherein freedom of expression is made available to press albeit fiercely as “no crime but a necessary right”. The court also propounded that a “fair and reasonable criticism” of a judgement which is a public document or which is a public act of a judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. The court also expressed that “such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less judges, can claim infallibility”.

5. Perspective Publications v. The State of Maharashtra [1971 AIR 221, 1969 SCR (2) 779]

The Honourable Court upheld the right of the public to exercise its right of criticism. The court referred to an excerpt from the judgement of Privy Council in Andre Paul Terenee Ambard v. Attorney General of Trinadad and Tobago (AIR 1936 PC 141), wherein it was held that “no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises its right to criticise in good faith in public or in private” provided that the members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and “not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice”, then they are immune.

It can therefore be concluded that every individual under the Constitution has the right to criticise the Courts and their judgements, however, it is to be remembered that the criticism should be free from any malice, this point was also recently reiterated in the judgement of ‘Re: Vijay Kurle’, wherein the Court held that “the law of contempt existed to ensure that respect for the Court's functioning was upheld at all times”. It is critical that a fair procedure is to be followed by the courts, as has been stated under the Contempt of Courts Act, while initiating any contempt proceedings. It is also crucial that the Honourable Judges at all times remember words of Lord Atkin, “…Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct.”

---

Also read: 4 Ways the Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Stood By Daughter’s Rights in Parental Property by Sankalp Mishra