Articles
Contempt of Court and Freedom of Speech A Dispute of Rights and Dignity
by Priya Sepaha Professor of LawThe paper aims to Show a comparative analysis between two foremost yet contradicting provisions prevailing In the nation. On the flip side, freedom of expression and speech is your basic fundamental and human right, however, on the other hand, contempt of court would be the weapon used from the prior right. An ideal thing is the fact the fact that the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression vide Article 1-9, nevertheless it's noteworthy that the very same constitution snatches away it employing the ability to punish for the contempt under Article 129 and also Article 215.
The proper under Article 19 is to advertise plurality of opinions but this right specially when compared with Contempt turns into a controversial matter. There really are a very few democracies that still provide contempt power to courts and India is one such nation. However, it must be taken into account it is perhaps not the Judiciary that can be autonomous but the Constitution that offers the association with such powers and can be ergo, ultimate.
If judges start acting intolerant to the essential reviews, it could mark the end of Christianity. The dignity of judges isn't brittle it would violate a few remarks rather than becoming motivated to work upon what's right. The paper intends to draw a comparative analysis amongst the rights and also their importance in democracy.
The aim is not to sideline the supply of contempt but to realize the need to confine it to protect the dignity of mates and also perhaps not the care takers. Judges deserve respect but not at the price of threatening the critics, but mistreating them misusing their powers from the disguise of contempt. No right could be jeopardized to protect the pride and self love indulgent of judges.
As mentioned by Justice Sanjay Kaul (20 20 ),"Among the most cherished rights beneath Indian Constitution will be to speak the mind and write your notions ." The Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, an all pure right is based upon the citizens of nearly every democratic country. The right is stipulated under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The freedom includes not merely the best to propagate the views but also publish them through freedom of press, commercial speech, right to broadcast, right to criticize, etc.,. But like the different Fundamental Rights, the human body imposes certain restrictions to the right of free speech under clause (2)inch of Article 19. The restrictions are included to ensure that the right does not end up dividing the democratic principles on which the nation is assembled.
These restrictions appear necessary today, whilst the best has been misused and also this is the point where the problem arises regarding what comprises the quintessence of democracy? Article 19 is the right to express the convictions and aspersions. For the common person, it's the metric for smooth behavior of any democratic nation.
Like another pillars of flames, the Judiciary too is legally subject to criticism. As held in S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram2 to form and express opinions and criticizing associations of democracy (like the judiciary) are maybe not the reasons to restrict the freedom of speech and expression. But , they should lower down the officialdom of judges or obstruct the administration of justice.
The methodology adopted during the research is secondary sources of data available such as books, provisions, articles, journals, statutes and reports. The authors have deeply studied the existing data and analyzed it in the present context
Insight Upon the Contempt of Court
The concept of contempt had a long way and is derived from colonial legacy. It was rightly built up in England where the concept was introduced to protect the judicial powers of the King. The literal meaning of the word ‘contempt’ in the Cambridge Dictionary is “a strong feeling of disliking and
having no respect for someone or something”. When interpreting the meaning in legal sense, contempt of court means disrespect or disregard towards the court. No statute defines the term, as such, however, for the first time, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as Act)
defined rather classified “contempt of court” into civil and criminal contempt”3 and further defined each of them independently, as “civil contempt”4 and “criminal contempt”5 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was based upon the recommendations of a Special Committee headed by H.N. Sanyal, the Additional Solicitor General of India. Article 129 and 215 provide the power to the Supreme Court and High Court respectively, to punish for its contempt.
The courts, being the court of record, have inherent power to punish for their own contempt and for the contemptof any lower court. The abovementioned powers are read in conjunction with Article 142(2) of Constitution and Section 228 of Indian Penal Code mandates the punishment for 6 months.
In Delhi Judicial Services Association vs. State of Gujarat & others 6, it was observed that the definition ofcriminal contempt is wide and covers every act that tends to interfere with the administration of justice and harms the dignity of the court.
The ambit is huge and empowers the judges to punish those who try to lowers the reputation of the courts. The aim of the Act was clarified in Omesh Saigal vs.R.K. Dalmia7, mentioning that its object is not to place judges in the place of immunity from criticism but to ensure that the image of the courts is not distorted.
RIGHTS VS. POWER
Article 19 and the relevant provisions of contempt of court are hazy and uncertain per se. This can be seen through the two most interesting interpretations by the Supreme Court. In P.N. Dua vs. P. Shankar8, a petition was filed against the Union Minister who alleged that the Judges are biased in favour of the rich, the bankers and the Zamindars. But, he was not convicted of the offence.
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that bonafide criticism does not portray contempt of court and such criticism must be welcomed as long as it does not hamper the administration of justice. Whereas, in case ofE.M.S. Namboordripad vs. T. Narayan 9 , the then Chief Minister of Kerala i.e., the petitioner, averred that the Judges are inclined towards the rich and was ultimately held liable for contempt of court under the Act. Hence, the law related to contempt is inconsistent and comes with an undefined boundary.
The aspect of contempt is one of the most under-theorized facets of Article 19. One questions the restrictions under clause (2) being so extensive that it limits the scope of clause (1) itself. In the cases of contempt, the judge is the prosecutor, the accuser and also the judge, who himself decides if the case comes under the ambit of contempt or not. It is violative of the principle of Natural Justice i.e.,“Nemo Judex In Causa Sua”10. This absolute right to judges is abused at times to stifle the freedom of reasonable and fair criticism of the judiciary, no matter how beneficial it is for the better working of the judiciary.
Although, the other side of the coin portrays that, such obstruction leads to better administration of justice. It also creates a sense of fear in the minds of people that any attempt to defame the judges or the institution shall come with consequences.
Although, it is not only the defamers who have to face consequences but the institution too as the Judges get themselves and their authority devalued whenever it seems that they are taking undue advantage of the powers provided to them. Read More
Sponsor Ads
About Priya Sepaha 
Professor of Law
1 connections, 0 recommendations, 11 honor points.Joined APSense since, February 5th, 2021, From Delhi, India.
Created on May 1st 2021 01:52. Viewed 260 times.
