Contempt of Court
- Recently, certain alleged derogatory remarks directed at the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court have reignited the debate on what exactly constitutes “contempt of court” in India. The issue has once again brought to the forefront the delicate balance between freedom of expression and respect for judicial authority.
What is Contempt of Court?
- Contempt of court is any act that shows disrespect or disobedience towards a court of law. It also includes any action that interferes with the court’s orderly process or lowers its authority.
- It ensures that the dignity and authority of the judiciary are upheld.
Evolution of Contempt Law in India
- Contempt of Court Act, 1926: Granted High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves and subordinate courts.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1952: Replaced the 1926 Act and extended similar powers to the Courts of Judicial Commissioners.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Enacted based on H.N. Sanyal Committee (1963) recommendations. It repealed the 1952 Act and continues to govern contempt law today, defining and regulating the courts’ power to punish contempt.
- Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006: It specified that punishment for contempt can be imposed only if the act substantially interferes or is likely to interfere with the administration of justice.
Constitutional Provision related to Contempt of Court
- Articles 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution recognise the existence of such power in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
- Article 129: Designates the Supreme Court as a “court of record” and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Article 215: Declares that every High Court is a “court of record” and confers upon it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
|
Types of Contempt
- Contempt can be either civil contempt or criminal contempt, as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (The Indian Constitution does not define the terms Civil Contempt & Criminal Contempt.)
- Civil contempt: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
- Criminal Contempt: Publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
- scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
- prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
- interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
- Initiation of Proceedings: Courts may act suo motu, or any person may file a petition with the consent of the Attorney General (SC) or Advocate General (HC).
- Punishment: Simple imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to ₹2,000, or both, and it is waived if the court accepts a genuine apology.
- Parliament has the power to legislate on matters related to contempt of court under Article 142(2) of the Constitution.
Landmark Contempt of Court Cases
- Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, 1952: Legitimate criticism of judgments does not equal contempt, unless it crosses the line of fair commentary
- Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, 2002: Courts caution against misuse of contempt powers.
- M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015): Abusive public speech against an HC order will be considered as criminal contempt.
- PUCL v. Union of India (2003): Reinforced freedom of expression but limited by contempt restrictions.
- Vijay Kurle and others (2020): The Court stated that to comment or criticise the court’s judgment, individuals must have the knowledge to challenge a judge’s integrity and authority.
- Shanmugam Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (2025): Reaffirmed that contempt power ensures administration of justice, not judicial immunity.
Criticism and Concerns
- Vague Definition: Terms like “scandalising the court” are subjective and open to misuse.
- Chilling Effect: Fear of contempt discourages free debate on judicial accountability.
- Conflict with Article 19(1)(a): Excessive contempt powers may infringe upon freedom of speech.
- Autonomous: Judges act as both aggrieved & adjudicating parties, raising concerns over impartiality.
- Need for Modernisation: Many democracies, such as the UK, have abolished “scandalising the court” as contempt, favouring transparency and open criticism.
Way Forward
- Legal Reform: Amend the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as per the Law Commission’s 274th Report (2018) to restrict criminal contempt to clear obstruction of justice.
- Judicial Transparency: Encourage reasoned engagement over punishment to strengthen public trust. E.g., only 3–4 contempt cases per year reach conviction in the Supreme Court.
- Free Expression: Define limits between fair criticism and contempt to uphold Article 19(1)(a) without undermining judicial dignity.
- Periodic Oversight: Set up a review mechanism every five years to reassess the scope and necessity of contempt powers in a maturing democracy.
A balanced contempt framework must uphold “judicial dignity without silencing democracy.”
Reforming its scope is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust in India’s justice system.
Reference: The Hindu
PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 410
Q. Critically analyse the scope and relevance of the Contempt of Court jurisdiction in India. Discuss how recent controversies have reignited the debate between judicial authority and freedom of expression (250 Words) (15 Marks)
Approach
- Introduction: Write a brief introduction about Contempt of Court in India and its debate.
- Body: Analyse the scope and relevance of contempt of court, also discuss how recent controversies reignited the debate and mention a way forward.
- Conclusion: Emphasis on a balanced approach to uphold judicial dignity without silencing democracy.
