Contempt of Court

Introduction

In a recent interview, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud clarified that the power of constitutional courts to take action for contempt is intended to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system, not to shield judges from criticism. The authority to penalize contempt is granted to the Supreme Court and high courts under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, with specific procedures outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of court is a legal mechanism designed to safeguard the dignity and authority of the judiciary. In India, this concept is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines contempt and prescribes appropriate punishments. The primary goal is to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process, ensuring that the authority of the courts is respected. However, the application of contempt laws often raises concerns about potential conflicts with freedom of expression, necessitating a careful balance.

Types of Contempt of Court

In India, contempt of court is broadly categorized into two types: civil contempt and criminal contempt.
Civil Contempt: As defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or other court processes.

Criminal Contempt: Under Section 2(c) of the Act, criminal contempt involves actions that scandalize or lower the authority of any court. This includes the publication of words or actions that:
(i) Scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tend to lower the authority of, any court.
(ii) Prejudice or interfere with, or tend to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding.
(iii) Interfere with, or obstruct, or tend to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

Defences Available in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The Act provides several defenses to individuals accused of contempt:
Innocent Publication: Under Section 3, if a person published material without reasonable grounds to believe that proceedings were pending, it is considered an "innocent" publication.

Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceedings: Section 4 protects individuals from contempt charges if they publish a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings.

Fair Criticism: Section 5 safeguards the right of citizens to express their beliefs and opinions, provided they do so truthfully and in good faith.
Complaint Against Presiding Officer: Section 6 allows individuals to make good faith statements about the presiding officer of any subordinate court without being guilty of contempt.

Truth as a Defence: Section 13 permits the court to accept truth as a valid defense in contempt proceedings if it serves the public interest or is made in good faith.

Apology: The proviso to Section 12(1) states that an accused may be discharged or have their punishment reduced if they offer an apology satisfactory to the court.

Current Scenario of Contempt of Court
As of April 2018, a report by the Law Commission highlighted that high courts had 568 pending criminal contempt cases and 96,310 civil contempt cases. The Supreme Court, as of April 10, 2018, had 683 pending civil contempt cases and 15 criminal contempt cases.

Conclusion

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, warrants careful review and potential reform to address longstanding ambiguities and concerns. The judiciary's dedication to upholding democratic principles, including freedom of expression, will be crucial in maintaining a balance between protecting the court's authority and safeguarding citizens' rights in the future.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty

4.0 | 2+ user ratings Greater Kailash - 1, Delhi
5 years

GET LEGAL HELP

GET LEGAL HELP