CONTEMPT OF COURT
1. Context
Hours after his party distanced itself from his statement that Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna was responsible for “grih yuddhas” (civil wars) in the country, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on Sunday morning attacked former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) S Y Quraishi over his criticism of the Waqf Act, labelling him a “Muslim Commissioner”.
2. What is Contempt of Court?
- The concept of Contempt of Court plays a crucial role in upholding the dignity and authority of the judiciary. It ensures that courts are able to perform their functions without obstruction and maintain the respect essential for the administration of justice.
- In India, this principle is codified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which recognizes two broad categories of contempt—civil and criminal.
- Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, or direction issued by a court. It may also involve the breach of an undertaking given to the court. For instance, if an individual deliberately fails to comply with a court’s order—such as ignoring a directive to pay court-mandated maintenance or refusing to act on a demolition order—it constitutes civil contempt. The key element here is the willful and intentional nature of the disobedience.
- On the other hand, criminal contempt goes beyond non-compliance and focuses on actions that obstruct the administration of justice. It includes any publication or act that scandalizes the court, lowers its authority, or prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings.
- This form of contempt is aimed at protecting the court’s reputation and preventing any influence—direct or indirect—that could compromise the fairness of a legal process.
- The judiciary, while equipped with the power to punish for contempt, exercises this authority with restraint. It is used sparingly and only when the court believes that the act in question threatens the integrity of the judicial system.
- In a democratic society, this balance between protecting the dignity of courts and upholding the right to free speech is essential.
- The law on contempt seeks to strike that balance, ensuring that while criticism of the judiciary is permissible within reasonable limits, acts that impede justice are not tolerated
3. The Role of the Supreme Court in Contempt of Court
- The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial body in the country, plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and authority of the judicial system, particularly when it comes to contempt of court.
- The Court holds the responsibility of ensuring that the dignity of the judiciary is respected and that the legal process remains uninterrupted. To this end, the Supreme Court has been entrusted with the power to punish acts of contempt and to take action when there is an attempt to undermine or obstruct the course of justice.
- The Supreme Court exercises its power to address contempt of court in two primary ways: preventing interference with judicial proceedings and protecting the reputation and authority of the judiciary.
- As a guardian of the Constitution, the Court uses its contempt powers to ensure that no individual or entity, whether governmental, private, or public, acts in a manner that could disrupt the delivery of justice or defame the judiciary.
- One of the key roles of the Supreme Court in contempt cases is to interpret and apply the law in a way that strikes a balance between protecting judicial authority and respecting constitutional rights, especially the freedom of speech.
- While the Court has the authority to punish contemptuous actions, including imposing fines or imprisonment, it is mindful of its role in a democracy. The Court typically steps in only when contemptuous behavior is blatant and significantly impacts the functioning of justice.
- For example, if someone openly insults the Court, defies its orders, or attempts to influence ongoing legal proceedings, the Supreme Court has the authority to take action.
- Additionally, the Supreme Court often serves as a forum for resolving high-profile contempt matters, particularly those involving media publications or public figures. The Court ensures that its judgments are implemented and that actions which may bring the court into disrepute or cause prejudice to the administration of justice are effectively dealt with.
- Through its oversight, the Supreme Court not only upholds the dignity of the judiciary but also reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and that judicial authority must be respected at all times.
- The Court's role in contempt of court cases is essential to maintaining the rule of law, ensuring that justice is served without fear, favor, or obstruction
4. What Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution says?
The Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court several powers and responsibilities to ensure the rule of law is maintained across the nation. Two of the significant provisions in this regard are Article 129 and Article 142, which empower the Supreme Court to uphold justice, enforce its orders, and protect the dignity of the judicial process.
Article 129: Power of the Supreme Court to Punish for Contempt of Court
- Article 129 explicitly states that the Supreme Court has the authority to punish any person for contempt of court. This provision grants the apex court the power to ensure that its dignity and authority are upheld, allowing it to take action when its decisions or the functioning of the judicial system is disrespected or obstructed.
- The article is vital in preserving the integrity of the judiciary, ensuring that its orders and judgments are followed, and preventing any act that undermines the administration of justice.
- In essence, Article 129 asserts that the Supreme Court has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt cases, whether civil or criminal, and can impose penalties such as fines or imprisonment if necessary.
- This power is an essential tool for maintaining the respect and effectiveness of the judicial process in India.
Article 142: Enforcement of Orders and Decrees of the Supreme Court
- Article 142 provides a broader and more proactive power to the Supreme Court, enabling it to pass any order or decree that it considers necessary to ensure complete justice in a matter.
- This article empowers the Court to make any order or pass any decree that is beyond the explicit provisions of law, as long as it is in pursuit of justice. It allows the Supreme Court to issue directions that may not strictly adhere to the letter of the law but are deemed essential to prevent injustice and serve the cause of justice in specific cases.
- Article 142 also plays a key role in the enforcement of the Court's decisions. It ensures that the Supreme Court's orders are fully executed, even when there is no clear legal provision to implement a decision.
- The article thus helps the Court to act decisively and ensure that its decisions are not merely symbolic but lead to real-world changes, reinforcing its role as the final arbiter of justice in India.
- In short, Article 142 enhances the powers of the Supreme Court by enabling it to pass orders for the enforcement of its decisions, fill legal gaps, and ensure that justice is done in a timely and effective manner
5. Criticism of Contempt of Court Proceedings
- While contempt of court proceedings play a critical role in maintaining the integrity and authority of the judiciary, they have been subject to criticism over the years. Critics argue that, when misused or overextended, contempt laws can pose a threat to democratic values, particularly the freedom of expression and the independence of the press.
- The debate over contempt of court laws centers on finding a balance between protecting the judiciary and ensuring that fundamental rights are not unduly restricted.
- One major criticism is that contempt of court proceedings can be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the judiciary. In a democratic society, the right to free speech and the freedom of the press are foundational principles.
- However, contempt laws, particularly criminal contempt, are sometimes perceived as being invoked to silence individuals or media outlets that critique or question judicial decisions, thus stifling public discourse.
- Critics argue that this undermines the transparency of the judicial process, as it discourages public debate on court judgments, which is essential for the evolution of law and justice.
- Additionally, there are concerns that contempt of court laws can be overly broad and vague. The definition of what constitutes contempt is often unclear, which can lead to arbitrary or excessive use of the power to punish individuals.
- For example, an individual who expresses an opinion about a court’s decision may be charged with contempt if the court deems the expression to be offensive, even if there was no intent to interfere with judicial proceedings. This lack of clear boundaries can result in inconsistent application of the law and the potential for abuse by those in power.
- Moreover, there is an argument that the judiciary should be self-regulating and not rely heavily on legal provisions to defend its honor. Some believe that judges should be able to withstand public criticism as part of the democratic process, as long as it does not impede the functioning of the court.
- In this view, contempt proceedings should only be used in cases of direct, serious interference with the judicial process, rather than as a tool to protect the judiciary’s image
- Another point of contention is that contempt of court laws are often disproportionately applied to those without the means to defend themselves, such as journalists or activists.
- The cost and complexity of legal proceedings can make it difficult for these individuals to mount an adequate defense, potentially leading to a chilling effect on free expression. This concern is especially pronounced when contempt charges are used to target dissenting voices or those who challenge the status quo.
- In conclusion, while contempt of court proceedings are essential for ensuring that the judiciary operates without interference, they must be applied with caution and clarity.
- Overuse or misuse of contempt laws can infringe on fundamental rights and inhibit public discourse, which is a vital aspect of a functioning democracy.
- Striking the right balance between protecting judicial authority and safeguarding freedoms of speech and expression remains a challenge that needs ongoing attention and scrutiny
|
For Prelims: Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc
For Mains: General Studies II: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
|
|
Previous Year Questions
1.Consider the following statements: (2022)
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only |
Source: Indianexpress
