Understanding Contempt of Courts
The courts in India are criticised on the ground that they often invoke the provisions of contempt of court to punish expressions of dissent, even when such expressions are not causing any threat to the administration of justice.
When the law of contempt of court was introduced in India?
The law of contempt of court in India is a hangover from British rule. The law originated in England from an undelivered judgement by J Wilmot in 1765. The judge said the power of contempt of court was required to uphold the dignity and majesty of judges.
The first Indian law on contempt i.e., the Contempt of Courts Act was passed in 1926. Before independence various states also had their corresponding Contempt of Court Act. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 replaced the Contempt of Courts, 1926, and various enactments of Indian states. On the basis of recommendations made by the Sanyal committee, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which can be described as a comprehensive legislation. Under Constitution of India, Articles 129 and 215 empowers the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt. Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to punish contempt of its subordinate courts.
What constitutes contempt under the Indian law?
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognizes two common forms of contempt viz. civil contempt and criminal contempt. When a person wilfully disobeys a court’s judgement, order or direction, it comes under civil contempt.
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, include one or more of the following: (a) scandalise or lower the authority of any court; (b) prejudice or interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (c) interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.
The limitation period of actions of contempt is one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Is criticism of the judiciary not allowed?
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, fair criticism of any case which has been heard and decided is allowed. Judges allow an informed and genuine discussion or criticism against their judgements but to incite a relatively illiterate audience against the judiciary is not ignored by the court.
Criticism on courts in using power of contempt
Indian courts have regularly used their contempt powers to punish expressions of dissent on purported grounds that such speech is undermining the judiciary’s authority. The courts, while doing so, have rarely conducted a strict analysis on whether such acts really posed any threat to or interference with the administration of justice.
In 1970, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction of contempt of court against the E.M.S. Namboodiripad (former Kerala Chief Minister). During his tenure as Chief Minister, he had delivered a speech where he said that judges were guided and dominated by class interests. In this case, the court had not made any analysis whether Namboodiripad’s statements weakens the court’s authority. There are two provisions in Indian Constitution. While Article 19(1)(a) gives citizens right to freedom of speech, Articles 129 and 215 give the Supreme Court and High Court the power of contempt.
The two provisions need to be reconciled. Since Article 19(1)(a) is the right of the citizens who are masters in a democracy, while Article 129 and 215 are powers of judges who are servants in a democracy, the reconciliation can be possible by holding that freedom of speech is primary, while the contempt power is secondary. It means the people are free and have the right to criticise judges, but they should not go to the extent of making the functioning of the judiciary impossible or extremely difficult. The courts also should not exercise their contempt power just because people criticized a judge. It should be exercised only when functioning of the judge becomes impossible. It is also accepted now in England, the country from which India got its contempt law.
Conclusion
There should be an appropriate balance between judicial protection and judicial accountability which the Indian judiciary successfully maintained so far. Respect for judiciary is necessary for affective rule of law. But respect should not be enforced, it must only be earned. The best shield and armour of a judge is his reputation of integrity, impartiality, and learning.
