Recently, in the news, the Supreme Court of India has initiated proceedings for criminal contempt of court against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, following his tweet that criticized the current Chief Justice of India and several other past Chief Justices of India over a span of six years.
Constitutional Provisions
The Indian Constitution provides power to the Supreme Court through Articles 129 and 142(2) which mandates the apex court to punish any individual for contempt. Alongside, Article 215 grants every High Court the authority to do so as well. However, the term ‘contempt of court’ is not defined by the Constitution itself.
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971
According to the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, ‘contempt’ is defined as an offense that disrespects the dignity or authority of a court. The Act further categorizes contempt into two types – civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience towards any court orders or judgments. In contrast, criminal contempt refers to acts that may scandalize the court by lowering its authority, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice.
In 2006, the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was amended introducing defense of truth under Section 13, allowing the court to consider the justification of truth as a valid defense if it serves the public interest. Also, innocent publication and distribution of some matter, fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, and comment on the administration of justice are not considered contempt of court.
Punishment for Contempt of Court
The Supreme Court and High Courts possess the authority to punish contempt of court with simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine of up to Rs. 2,000, or both. A ruling by the Supreme Court in 1991 declared that it has the power to punish for contempt not only of itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals functioning across India. High Courts also possess special powers to punish contempt of subordinate courts, as outlined in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.
Necessity for Contempt Law
Contempt law is crucial to protect the judiciary from unfair public attacks and maintain its reputation. It aids judges to perform their duties without any external pressure or influence.
Controversies surrounding Contempt Law
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution grants freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, “contempt provisions” restrict people’s freedom to speak against the court’s operations. This law is highly subjective and can be potentially used by the judiciary to suppress public criticism arbitrarily. One such example is that the understanding of contempt varies among judges based on their individual temperaments and preferences.
The Road Ahead
The law of contempt of court should not be misused to curb criticisms. In the current times, it is imperative that courts are viewed as being accountable and transparent, and accusations are dealt with impartial probes rather than threats of contempt action. Given these factors, it becomes essential to reconsider the need for a law on criminal contempt. For revamping this area of law, India could learn from Britain, which abolished the offense of scandalizing the judiciary as a form of contempt of court in 2013 as it was vague and incompatible with freedom of speech.