Under Articles 129 and 215, the Supreme Court and High Courts are “courts of record” empowered to punish for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, based on the H.N. Sanyal Committee, classifies contempt into civil and criminal.
Significance of Contempt Power in safeguarding Judicial authority:
- Ensuring Compliance: Willful disobedience of court orders threatens rule of law pointout out the need for enforcement capacity.
- Protecting the Administration of Justice: Attempts to influence witnesses, malign judges, or disrupt proceedings demand corrective mechanisms. For e.g., In Vijay Kurle (2020), the SC held that scandalous allegations against judges impair public faith in justice.
- Preserving Judicial Authority: False or sensational media narratives on sub judice matters can prejudice trials, making contempt a necessary deterrent.
Criticisms against its misuse:
- Vagueness and Subjectivity: Terms like “scandalising the court” are undefined and subjective. As observed in P.N. Duda (1988), contempt must be used sparingly, only when a “real and imminent threat” exists.
- Clash with Freedom of Speech: Contempt provisions often deter legitimate criticism. For example, The Prashant Bhushan case (2020) triggered debate on whether criticism of judicial conduct, even if harsh, threatens the institution.
- Perception of Judicial Overreach: The judiciary acts as complainant, prosecutor, and judge in contempt cases, raising due-process concerns.
- Chilling Effect: Fear of contempt restrains investigative journalism and reporting on judicial accountability. For example, the SC’s warnings against “trial by media” in high-profile cases such as Aarushi Talwar, Sushant Singh Rajput.
Balancing Judicial Authority with Free Speech:
- Narrower Definition of Criminal Contempt: Following the 2006 amendment which requires “substantial interference”, further clarity can prevent arbitrary application.
- Protect Good-Faith Criticism: As held in Brahma Prakash Sharma (1953), criticism intending reform cannot constitute contempt.
- Improved Transparency and Accountability: RTI compliance, disclosure norms, and institutional reforms reduce the need for harsh contempt powers.
- Promote Public Awareness: Training journalists and citizens on sub judice norms protects fair trials without silencing criticism.
Conclusion:
There is a need for calibrated use, clearer statutory definitions, and protection of genuine criticism, ensuring that contempt powers defend—not shield—the judiciary. A balance between judicial authority and free expression is essential for a transparent and accountable justice system.
‘+1’ Value Addition:
- More than 96,993 civil and 583 criminal cases in High Courts as per the Law Commission report.
- Electoral Bonds case (2024) emphasised “level playing field,” thematic link to MCC-related judicial oversight.
- UK abolished the offence of “scandalising the court” in 2013.
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2025 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040
