Recently, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) urged for a review of criminal contempt laws in India. This call was stirred by the Supreme Court’s decision to convict advocate Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Decision
Central to the case were two tweets by Bhushan which led to suo-motu consideration and subsequent conviction for ‘scandalizing the court’. The conviction brought with it a fine of Rs. 1. The Supreme Court held that these tweets, commenting on its “role” over the “past six years”, coupled with a photograph of the Chief Justice of India on a motorbike, undermined the dignity of the court and the office of the chief justice.
This case calls into question the scope and application of Contempt of Court: Constitutional Provisions and Statutory Provisions such as Article 129, 215, and 142 of the Indian Constitution and the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
Understanding Contempt of Court Laws
Article 129 and 215 empowers the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively, to punish individuals for their respective contempt. Article 142 also enables the Supreme Court to enact punishment for its contempt. However, the Indian Constitution does not provide a clear definition of contempt of court per se.
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 provides further detailing on the concept of contempt, dividing it between civil and criminal categories.
International Commission of Jurists’ Views
In the ICJ’s view, the conviction seems to conflict with international standards on freedom of expression and the role of lawyers. Further, the judgement contradicts free speech protections outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 to universally protect fundamental human rights.
The judgement also conflicts with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a core international human rights treaty, guaranteeing a range of civil and political rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 and ratified by India among 173 other countries.
Where Does This Leave Lawyers?
The judgment appears contrary to the UN’s Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which explicitly state that lawyers have the right to participate in public discussions pertaining to law, justice administration, and human rights protection. The Bar Association of India echoes this sentiment, expressing concerns about the negative implications for institutional prestige when contempt jurisdiction is exercised in this manner.
About International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
The ICJ has been tirelessly working as a non-governmental organization (NGO) since 1952, to uphold human rights and the rule of law worldwide. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, the ICJ’s role has significantly influenced legal developments globally.
Paving the Way Forward
With social media being a prevalent platform for expression, the laws around contempt of court require a considered review. It is crucial now more than ever for courts to focus on transparency and accountability rather than resorting to contempt actions.
India could draw lessons from Britain, which abolished scandalizing the judiciary as a form of contempt in 2013. With regards to contempt, the Law Commission of India, although in favor of retaining the provision, suggested restricting its definition in the Contempt of Court Act to only civil contempt, i.e., willful disobedience of court judgments.
