Contempt for "Scandalising the Courts"

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

  Contempt for "Scandalising the Courts"

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• What is the story: The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Union government on a PIL petition, challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that makes “scandalising or tends to scandalising courts” as a ground for contempt. A strong judiciary in a democratic republic is the bulwark of masses of this country. It must work towards fulfilling the goals set out in the constitution - to secure social economic and political justice for the masses and to uphold their fundamental rights.
• What is PIL: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stands for a legal action taken by a public spirited person in order to protect public interest (any act for the benefit of the public). 
• Details: Contempt is the power of the court to protect its own majesty and respect. The power is regulated but not restricted in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The expression ‘contempt of court’ has not been defined by the Constitution. But 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 Act: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines both civil and criminal contempt. 

1. Civil contempt [Section 2(b)] refers to wilful disobedience to any judgment of the court.  
2. Criminal contempt can be invoked if an act: Tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the court [Section 2 (c)(i)]; or Tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding [Section 2 (c)(ii)]; or Obstruct the administration of justice [Section 2 (c)(iii)]. Section 5 of the Act provides that “fair criticism” or “fair comment” on the merits of a finally decided case would not amount to contempt. But the determination of what is “fair” is left to the interpretation of judges. 

• What petitioners want: Section 2(c)(i) of the Act violates the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and does not amount to a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The judges may often be seen to be acting in their own cause, thus violating the principles of natural justice and adversely affecting the public confidence they seek to preserve through the proceeding.
• Key problems: 

1. Subjectivity: The word ‘scandalising’ is subjective and depends on the perception of the concerned person. As long as the words ‘scandalising the court’ are present (in the statute book), it will be susceptible to arbitrary exercise of power.
2. Personal issues: Courts treat personal attacks on their character as contempt.
3. Judges and Courts: It is often forgotten that the law of contempt is not meant for protecting the judges, but it is for the protection of the institution of the judiciary.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course |  Join PT courses