Context:
The CJI pointed to how courts had to deal with the new problem of “contempt petitions” triggered by the “deliberate inaction” of governments that chose to ignore judgments and orders.
Relevance:
GS II- Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- What did the CJI say?
- What is contempt of court?
- What is the statutory basis for contempt of court?
- What are the kinds of contempt of court?
- What is not contempt of court?
What did the CJI say?
- The contempt petitions are a new category of burden on the courts, which is a direct result of the defiance by the governments.
- Such actions show sheer defiance of governments towards judicial pronouncements.
- There is visible inclination to pass off the responsibility of decision-making to courts.
- The legislature’s work show ambiguity, lack of foresight and public consultation before making laws have led to docket explosion.
What is contempt of court?
Contempt of court, as a concept that seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority, is back in the news in India.
How did the concept of contempt come into being?
- The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old.
- In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name.
- Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.
What is the statutory basis for contempt of court?
- There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India.
- When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself.
- Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.
What are the kinds of contempt of court?
- The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal.
- Civil Contempt – when someone wilfully disobeys a court order, or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to court.
- Criminal Contempt – consists of three forms:
- words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court
- prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding and
- interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
- Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to judgments and judicial functioning and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges are normally considered matters that scandalise the judiciary.
- The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
- The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months and/or a fine of up to RS. 2,000.
What is not contempt of court?
- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court.
- Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.
- Truth as a defence against a contempt charge: For many years, truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt. There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution. The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence, if it was in public interest and was invoked in a bona fide manner.
-Source: The Hindu
