The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding its powers under Article 129 to punish for contempt of court has come under the spotlight. The ruling stated that these powers are constitutional and cannot be abrogated even by any law enacted.
Details of the Judgement
The judgement emphasised that the power to penalize for contempt is a constitutional authority vested within the Supreme Court. This power, according to the court, cannot be curtailed or removed by any legislation. Though Article 142 (2) mentions that the Supreme Court can issue any order on contempt of itself, “subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament,” Article 129 clearly states that the Supreme Court has all the powers of a court of record, including punishing for contempt.
The court noted that there is no such limitation as per Article 129, while the founding fathers might have thought that powers under Article 142 clause(2) could be subject to laws made by the Parliament. The court highlighted that the rationale behind contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of judicial institutions.
About ‘Contempt of Court’
Contempt of court refers to the court’s inherent power to protect its respect and majesty. While this power is regulated, it is not restricted by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It may be worth noting here that the term ‘contempt of court’ is not defined by the Constitution.
Article 129 of the Constitution imbues the Supreme Court with the power to reprimand for its contempt. Similarly, Article 215 confers a comparable power to the High Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 outlines both civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt pertains to deliberate defiance of any court judgment, whereas criminal contempt can be invoked if an act tends to scandalize or lower the court’s authority, disrupt any ongoing judicial procedure, or hinder the justice administration.
Related Issues
The Act’s Section 5 specifies that “fair criticism” or “fair comment” on a finally settled case would not constitute contempt. However, determining what is considered “fair” is left to the judges, occasionally compromising freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 due to this open-ended interpretation.
There are also concerns about violating the principle of natural justice. Often, judges may be perceived as acting in their interest, infringing upon principles of natural justice and negatively affecting the public confidence they aim to sustain through proceedings.
Way Forward
Freedom of speech forms the bedrock of any democratic society and restrictions on it ought to be minimal. The law relating to contempt of court can impose only such constraints necessary to uphold the legitimacy of judicial institutions.
Hence, rules and guidelines should be framed to delineate the process superior courts should follow when dealing with criminal contempt actions. This course of action must balance principles of natural justice and fairness.
