Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Constitutional Framework
- ‘Contempt of court’ used in Article 19(2) as ground for imposing reasonable restriction on fundamental freedoms.
- Constitution does not give guidelines on how to initiate such proceedings requiring legislative framework.
- Supreme Court and High Court designated as courts of record under Article 129 and 215 respectively.
- Court of record: decisions kept in reserve for future references; inherently has power to punish for its contempt.
- Implicit constitutional provision explained in Contempt of Court Act, 1971 providing detailed procedures comprehensively.
Types of Contempt
- Civil Contempt
- Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ.
- Also includes wilful breach of undertaking given to court violating court’s authority and orders.
- Criminal Contempt
- Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as publication (words spoken/written, signs, visible representations) of any matter.
- Doing any act which:
- (i) scandalises or lowers authority of any court affecting judicial dignity.
- (ii) prejudices or interferes with due course of any judicial proceeding obstructing justice delivery.
- (iii) interferes with administration of justice in any other manner undermining judicial system comprehensively.
- Contempt different from mere disrespect: beyond covering disobedience and disruption in working of justice system.
Initiation of Proceedings
- High Court or Supreme Court may initiate contempt proceedings suo moto on their own motion.
- May also be initiated by third party provided petition has consent from Attorney General (SC) or Advocate General (HC).
Fair Criticism vs Contempt
- Settled principle: fair criticism of decided case not contempt; criticism transgressing limits may be considered contemptuous.
- Ashwini Kumar Ghosh vs Arabinda Bose (1952): established distinction between fair commentary and contemptuous criticism.
- Anil Ratan Sarkar vs Hirak Ghosh (2002): power to punish must be exercised with caution; only when clear violation of order.
Landmark Cases
- M. V. Jayarajan vs High Court of Kerala (2015): SC upheld contempt finding for using abusive language in public speech.
- Established such actions could be criminal contempt for undermining judiciary’s authority and disrupting administration of justice.
- Shanmugam vs High Court of Madras (2025): SC held purpose to punish for contempt is to ensure administration of justice.
Democratic Criticism
- Criticising Courts’ action democratically not wrong: however, judiciary plays crucial role in setting state priorities.
- Sanctity of administration of justice must be maintained; any misrepresentation amounts to contempt and detrimental to democratic principles.