Contempt of Court
Context:
The issue has gained prominence following a recent controversy over the alleged contemptuous and derogatory remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court
Such remarks, spread through media, are seen as potentially interfering with and obstructing the administration of justice.
This prompted demands for contempt proceedings.
Constitutional Provisions & Courts of Record:
The law of contempt of court is governed by two acts in India: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and The Constitution of India.
The Constitution designates the Supreme Court (Article 129) and High Courts (Article 215) as courts of record.
A court of record is one whose decisions are kept for future reference
It inherently possesses the power to punish for its own contempt.
‘Contempt of court’ is used in Article 19(2) as one of the grounds for imposing reasonable restriction on fundamental freedoms yet the Constitution does not give guidelines on how to initiate such proceedings.
Contempt of court falls under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III of the Constitution’s seventh schedule, which grants the legislature the competence to legislate on the subject.
Types of Contempt (under Contempt of Court Act, 1971)
Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)):
It is defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)):
It is defined as the publication of any matter or doing any act which:
Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court
Prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings
Interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of justice in any other manner.
Initiation of Proceedings
The Supreme Court or a High Court can initiate contempt proceedings suo moto.
It can also be initiated by a third party
But this requires consent from the Attorney General (for the Supreme Court) or the Advocate General (for the High Court)
Fair Criticism vs. Contempt:
A settled principle is that fair criticism of a decided case is not contempt
However, criticism that transgresses the limits of fair commentary may be considered as contemptuous
The power to punish for contempt must be exercised with caution and only when there is a clear violation of an order.