Contempt of Court and Judicial Authority 

Why in News?

• A recent controversy arose over alleged derogatory remarks made against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Supreme Court, sparking debate on whether such statements amount to criminal contempt of court.
• The remarks, widely circulated on media and social media, are being viewed as potentially obstructing the administration of justice and eroding the judiciary’s institutional authority.

Relevance:

• GS-2 (Polity): Pertains to constitutional provisions under Articles 129, 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; upholds judicial independence.

• GS-2 (Governance): Balances freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with institutional accountability and rule of law.

• GS-2 (Judiciary): Demonstrates the evolving judicial stance on fair criticism, media conduct, and protection of judicial dignity.

Constitutional & Legal Basis

• Article 19(2): Allows “reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech for, among other grounds, contempt of court.
• Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court a Court of Record with inherent power to punish for its contempt.
• Article 215: Grants the same power to High Courts.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Provides statutory clarity and procedure for contempt proceedings.

Types of Contempt (as per the 1971 Act)

1. Civil Contempt (Section 2(b))
   1. Definition: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, direction, writ, or undertaking given to a court.
   2. Example: Non-compliance with a court order to pay maintenance or reinstate employment.
2. Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c))
   1. Definition: Publication or act that —
      i) Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court,
      ii) Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or
      iii) Interferes with administration of justice.
   2. Scope: Goes beyond disobedience — covers speech, writing, signs, or conduct that damages judicial credibility.

Key Judicial Interpretations

• Fair criticism ≠ Contempt:
  • Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952) – Fair and reasoned criticism of a judgment is permissible; personal attacks are not.
• Exercise with restraint:
  • Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002) – Contempt power must be used sparingly and only in clear cases of violation.
• Public speech as criminal contempt:
  • M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015) – Use of abusive language against the judiciary in public constitutes criminal contempt.
• Recent reaffirmation:
  • Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (2025) – Purpose of contempt law is to uphold the administration of justice, not to suppress legitimate dissent.

Procedure for Initiating Contempt

• Suo motu action: Courts (SC or HC) can initiate proceedings themselves.
• Third-party initiation: Requires consent of:
  • Attorney General (AGI) – for Supreme Court.
  • Advocate General (AG) – for respective High Court.
• Punishments (under Section 12 of the Act):
  • Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or
  • Fine up to ₹2,000, or both (with possibility of discharge on apology).

Rationale & Relevance

• Protects judicial independence: Maintains public confidence in the justice system.
• Ensures effective administration of justice: Prevents disruptions or undue influence during proceedings.
• Preserves constitutional morality: Judiciary’s authority is central to checks and balances in a democracy.

Contempt vs. Freedom of Speech

• Balance of rights:
  • While free expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute.
  • The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, must remain insulated from malicious or false attacks that weaken institutional trust.
• Law Commission (274th Report, 2018): Retaining criminal contempt provisions is essential to preserve respect for judicial authority and rule of law.
• Comparative perspective:
  • UK abolished “scandalising the court” in 2013; India retains it due to the higher public trust placed in the judiciary and the fragile rule-of-law ecosystem.

Contemporary Concerns

• Social media amplification: Digital platforms can spread defamatory or misleading content rapidly, intensifying contemptuous impact.
• Public misperception: Criticism often crosses into vilification, confusing accountability with contempt.
• Institutional legitimacy: Repeated public disparagement can erode faith in judicial impartiality and weaken constitutional governance.

Balancing Critique & Contempt

Permissible Criticism	Contemptuous Expression
Academic/legal critique of a judgment	Personal attacks on judges
Highlighting judicial errors or bias through evidence	Accusations of corruption without proof
Debating judicial philosophy	Mocking or demeaning the judiciary’s authority
Advocacy for reform	Campaigns that obstruct ongoing cases

Way Forward

• Promote judicial literacy: Public understanding of judicial processes can prevent uninformed criticism.
• Encourage responsible media conduct: Enforce ethical reporting codes for judiciary-related matters.
• Develop social media protocols for contempt and misinformation.
• Codify fair criticism standards to demarcate dissent from defamation.
• Regular review of contempt powers to align with evolving democratic norms.

Key Takeaway

The Contempt of Court mechanism is not meant to shield the judiciary from scrutiny but to safeguard the integrity of justice delivery.
In an era of digital expression, freedom with responsibility is vital to maintain the balance between democratic dissent and judicial dignity.

---