Contempt of Court in India – Authority and Legal Framework

The recent controversy involving alleged contemptuous remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court has brought the issue of contempt of court into sharp focus. Such remarks, especially when spread through media and social media, are viewed as attempts to undermine the authority of the judiciary. This has prompted calls for initiating contempt proceedings to protect constitutional morality and the administration of justice.

About Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is recognised under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India as a ground for reasonable restriction on fundamental freedoms. However, the Constitution does not specify procedures for contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record under Articles 129 and 215 respectively. This status grants them the power to punish for contempt. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, clarifies this power and classifies contempt into civil and criminal types.

Civil and Criminal Contempt

Civil contempt, defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, involves wilful disobedience to court orders or breach of court undertakings. Criminal contempt, under Section 2(c), includes acts or publications that scandalise or lower the authority of courts, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. Criminal contempt goes beyond mere disrespect and targets actions that disrupt the justice system.

Initiation of Contempt Proceedings

Contempt proceedings can be initiated suo moto by the Supreme Court or High Courts. Third parties may also file petitions but require consent from the Attorney General (Supreme Court) or Advocate General (High Courts). This ensures that contempt actions are not misused and are pursued with proper legal oversight.

Limits of Criticism and Judicial Safeguards

Fair criticism of judicial decisions is not contempt, as established in Ashwini Kumar Ghosh vs Arabinda Bose (1952). However, criticism crossing the boundary of fair comment may attract contempt charges. The courts exercise contempt powers cautiously, as emphasised in Anil Ratan Sarkar vs Hirak Ghosh (2002). The landmark case of M. V. Jayarajan vs High Court of Kerala (2015) upheld contempt for abusive public speech undermining judicial authority.

Recent Judicial Views on Contempt

In Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan vs High Court of Madras (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that contempt punishment aims to safeguard the administration of justice. Democratic criticism of courts is permitted but must respect the judiciary’s role in maintaining justice and public trust. Misrepresentation or derogatory remarks may harm democratic values and obstruct justice delivery.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional morality in India. With suitable examples, discuss how contempt of court laws support this role.
2. Explain the balance between freedom of speech and contempt of court in a democratic society. How do Indian laws address this tension?
3. What are the powers and limitations of courts of record in India? Discuss with reference to Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India.
4. Comment on the impact of social media on the administration of justice in India. How should legal frameworks evolve to address challenges posed by digital platforms?

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional morality in India. With suitable examples, discuss how contempt of court laws support this role.

1. The judiciary acts as guardian of the Constitution, ensuring laws and executive actions conform to constitutional principles.
2. It maintains constitutional morality by protecting fundamental rights and checking arbitrary power.
3. Contempt of court laws preserve the authority and dignity of courts, crucial for upholding constitutional morality.
4. Example – M.V. Jayarajan case (2015) upheld contempt for abusive speech undermining judiciary, protecting judicial authority.
5. Contempt laws prevent interference with justice administration, reinforcing courts’ role as impartial arbiters.
6. Thus, contempt laws act as a tool to maintain public confidence in the constitutional framework and justice delivery.

2. Explain the balance between freedom of speech and contempt of court in a democratic society. How do Indian laws address this tension?

1. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech; Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions including contempt of court.
2. Fair and bona fide criticism of judiciary is allowed and protected (Ashwini Kumar Ghosh case, 1952).
3. Contempt applies only when criticism scandalises or lowers court authority or obstructs justice (Contempt of Court Act, 1971).
4. Courts exercise contempt powers cautiously to avoid stifling legitimate free speech (Anil Ratan Sarkar case, 2002).
5. Balance maintained by distinguishing fair commentary from malicious or disruptive speech against judiciary.
6. Thus, Indian laws seek to uphold democratic dialogue while protecting judiciary’s effective functioning.

3. What are the powers and limitations of courts of record in India? Discuss with reference to Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India.

1. Articles 129 (Supreme Court) and 215 (High Courts) designate them as courts of record in India.
2. Courts of record keep records of their proceedings for future reference and precedent.
3. They have inherent power to punish for contempt to protect their authority and ensure justice.
4. Limitations include the need for caution in exercising contempt powers to avoid misuse or suppression of rights.
5. Contempt proceedings can be suo moto or initiated with consent of Attorney General/Advocate General to prevent frivolous actions.
6. Thus, courts of record have strong powers balanced by procedural safeguards and judicial prudence.

4. Comment on the impact of social media on the administration of justice in India. How should legal frameworks evolve to address challenges posed by digital platforms?

1. Social media accelerates dissemination of information, including criticism or derogatory remarks against judiciary.
2. It can amplify contemptuous content, risking undermining judicial authority and public trust.
3. Challenges include anonymity, viral spread, and difficulty in regulating content timely and effectively.
4. Legal frameworks need to incorporate digital literacy, clear guidelines on online contempt, and swift redress mechanisms.
5. Courts may need to expand suo moto powers and coordinate with cyber laws to address online contempt and misinformation.
6. Balancing free expression and protecting justice requires updated laws reflecting digital realities and technological tools.