Constitutional Provision With Regard To Contempt Of Court

Being in contempt of court entails interfering with the court's orderly proceedings as well as showing disrespect or disobedience to it. The Supreme Court is described in Article 129 as a "Court of record," with all the authority that entails, including the authority to punish itself for contempt. The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act discusses both the civil and criminal forms of contempt but does not define it.

 

•    A person who disobeys a judge or otherwise obstructs the legal process in court is guilty of the crime of contempt of court.

 

•    The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 states that contempt of court can be either civil or criminal.

 

•    There is no definition of "contempt of court" in the Constitution.

 

•    On the other hand, Article 129 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to punish itself for contempt.

 

•    In addition, Article 142(2) gives the Supreme Court the authority to look into and punish any instances of the Supreme Court disobeying itself.

 

•    For instance: The Honorable Supreme Court Of India v. Justice C.S. Karnan (2017) - A sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice C.S. Karnan, received a six-year prison term for disrespecting the court and the Indian judicial system.

 

•    In a same vein, Article 215 designates High Courts as a "Court of record," with all the associated rights and privileges, including the right to impose sanctions for judicial contempt.

 

•    The ability to punish for contempt of the High Court and Supreme Court is granted by both the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

 

•    A court can only impose a contempt punishment if it is convinced that the behavior substantially impedes or is likely to considerably impede the proper administration of justice, according to the 2006 amendment to the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. 

 

•    The Supreme Court and High Courts can sentence a person to simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to 2,000 rupees, or both for contempt of court.

 

•    According to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, High Courts have been given unique powers to punish contempt of subordinate courts. The Supreme Court held that it has the authority to punish for contempt not only itself, but also all other high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals in the country.

 

•    Judicial criticism is unavoidable in a free society.

 

•    The contempt power is required to deal with overt threats to judges, interference with the administration of justice, and willful disobedience of court orders (civil contempt).

 

•    The concept of contempt exists to shield the judiciary from unjustified criticism and to stop the judiciary's standing in the eyes of the public from declining.

 

•    The public will not remain silent when judges with such sway use their authority.

 

•    The decisions made by the courts will draw criticism, just as decisions made by other sectors of the government.

 

•    The statute of contempt should not be applied to shield the court from criticism, but rather to allow the court to operate.

 

•    However, there is a tension between the freedom of speech and expression (under article 19) and the provision of the contempt statute that criminalizes anything that "scandalizes or tends to scandalize" the judiciary in the age of social media.

 

•    Criminal contempt laws are in conflict with India's democratic system, which upholds freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right.

 

•    In using the law to restrict free speech, the judiciary is similar to the executive branch in this regard.

 

•    In India, the term "criminal contempt" has a broad and practical definition. Furthermore, the Court's power to start these processes on its own motion only makes things more complicated.

 

•    In addition, the Contempt of Courts Act was revised in 2006 to include truth and good faith as viable defenses to contempt, but the courts rarely consider them.

 

•    In foreign democracies, contempt has almost completely vanished since authorities have acknowledged its outdated nature.

 

•    For instance, "scandalizing the court" was outlawed in England in 2013.

 

•    The basis for Canada's contempt threshold is an administration facing immediate, serious, and actual threats.

 

•    In numerous High Courts and the Supreme Court, there are still numerous civil and criminal contempt cases open. The large number of instances demonstrates the continued applicability of the contempt of court statute.

 

•    The impact of the law as a whole would be diminished, and people's respect for the judiciary, its authority, and its procedures would decline. In India, there would be a legislative void if the offence were abolished.

 

•    The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the authority to impose contempt due to the Constitution. The 1971 Contempt of judicial Act essentially lays out the process for identifying and dealing with judicial contempt.

 

•    Therefore, the exclusion of the violation from the Act will have no bearing on the higher courts' inherent constitutional authority to punish Act violators.

 

•    Even if the 1971 Act is repealed, these powers will still be valid.

 

•    The Constitution gives superior courts the power to hold inferior courts in contempt and impose sanctions. The High Court may fine inferior courts for contempt under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.

 

•    If the definition of contempt is eliminated, subordinate courts would suffer since there will be no means to adjudicate instances of their contempt.

 

•    A lot of protections are built into the law to guard against misuse.

 

•    For instance, which circumstances do not constitute contempt and which are not subject to the penalty of contempt.

 

•    These clauses imply that not all instances of contempt will result in legal action.

 

•    The Supreme Court declared Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan to be in contempt of court in Prashant Bhushan & Anr.

 

•    It decided that the Senior Advocate's two tweets violated the court's authority and were therefore in contempt of court.

 

•    In this instance, cartoonist Rachita Taneja was accused of tweeting offensive information about the court in the form of cartoons.

 

•    The aforementioned post was widely shared and subscribed to once it went viral.

 

•    The Attorney General claimed that the drawings were disrespectful to the Supreme Court since such posts are intended to reduce public perceptions of the Supreme Court's authority.

 

 

•    After learning that the defendants in a lawsuit included a forged Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order in a collection of documents they provided to the court during a recent hearing, the Delhi High Court instituted criminal contempt proceedings against them. 

 

The Indian Law Commission came to the conclusion that the judicial contempt rule should be maintained. However, it was also suggested that the Contempt of Court Act's definition of contempt be restricted to civil contempt, which is characterized as wilful disobedience of a court's ruling. Furthermore, in the era of social media, it is not only necessary to review the criminal contempt laws but also to evaluate the contempt standard.