The Supreme Court has recently found renowned civil rights lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, guilty of criminal contempt of court. This charge was due to a defamatory tweet made by Bhushan against the Chief Justice of India. This occurrence brings to light the enforcement and criticism surrounding the Contempt of Court Act of 1971.
Defamation of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that Bhushan’s tweet scandalised the court as an institution. The court is seen as the epitome of the Indian judiciary, and any attack on it could undermine confidence in the system. Judges and litigants throughout India might lose faith in the Supreme Court due to such actions.
Contempt Powers not for Vindication
While condemning the defamatory act, the court however established that its contempt powers are intended to uphold the law’s majesty and are not meant to vindicate individual judges subjected to defamatory remarks.
Suo Moto Cognizance
The court clarified that the Attorney General’s prior consent is not necessary to initiate suo moto, or self-initiated, contempt proceedings. These inherent contempt powers are drawn from Article 129 of the Constitution. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 does not limit these powers, but merely provides the procedure for initiating such contempt.
The Contempt of Court Act of 1971
According to this Act, contempt of court can be either civil or criminal. Civil contempt involves wilful disobedience to any judgement, order or decree of a court, or breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt comprises any act or publication that scandalises, lowers the authority of any court, interferes with ongoing judicial proceedings or obstructs justice.
The punishment stipulated by the Act includes imprisonment extending up to six months, or a fine of ₹2,000, or both. The Act was amended in 2006 to include “truth and good faith” as a defence. However, this Act has been criticised for its colonial-era origins and perceived potential for judicial overreach.
Review by the Law Commission
The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 was reviewed by the Law Commission in 2018, which drew attention to the fact that the contempt powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts are independent of this Act, being derived from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The Commission noted that deleting the offence from the Act would not affect these inherent constitutional powers to punish contempt.
While the UK has abolished contempt laws due to their infrequent use, such a move in India would leave a legislative gap. The Act enables the High Court to take action against contempt of subordinate courts. Diluting the Act could expose the lower judiciary to contempt, and the Act provides adequate safeguards against acts which may not amount to criminal contempt.
Suo Moto Cognizance
Suo moto cognizance is a Latin term referring to the power of a court or government agency to initiate action on its own apprehension, often used in instances of violation of rights or breach of duty. This proactive judicial approach is facilitated by the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) provisions in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. The power of the Supreme Court to take suo moto action is also provided in Article 131 of the Constitution. Suo moto actions by Indian courts are seen as a reflection of judicial activism.
Last Modified: February 8, 2024