CHINA-IRAN DEAL

• China and Iran are close to sealing an ambitious deal on an economic and
security partnership, a move that has caught the attention of policymakers
in India and across the world.
• An 18-page draft agreement shows it will facilitate the infusion of about $280
billion from Beijing, which wants to buy oil from cash-strapped Iran. China will
also invest $120 billion into Iran’s transport and manufacturing infrastructure,
thus giving it inroads into major sectors in Iran including banking,
telecommunications, ports and railways.
• China and Iran would launch joint training exercises, joint research and
weapons development and intelligence sharing. China will also offer its GPS to
Iran, build infrastructure for 5G rollout and develop free trade zones.
• The China-Iran partnership agreement is to get the final clearance from the
Iranian Parliament.
• Iran is already a signatory of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and this is in
line with China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”. The deal has come under criticism
from Iran’s political actors, including former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
• The seeds were sown during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Iran in
January 2016, when the two sides agreed to establish ties based on a
Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, while announcing discussions would
begin aimed at concluding a 25-year bilateral pact.

DOES THE DEAL REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN CHINA-IRAN?

• Relations between Iran and China date back to 200 BC, when civilisational
contact was established between the Parthian and Sassanid empires (in
present-day Iran and Central Asia) and the Han, Tang, Song, Yuan and Ming
dynasties. When the Kushan empire since the first century, with Kanishka at its
helm, became the crossroads for Sino-Indian Buddhist transmissions, many
Iranians were translating Sanskrit sutras into Chinese.
• As countries with historical contacts, Iran and China view each other as
successor states to civilisational empires.
• Both share a sense of past humiliation in the hands of foreign players.
• However, Modern-day diplomatic ties between Iran and China are just about
50 years old. China was invited to the 2,500-year celebration of the Persian
Empire in October 1971.

1
 • In the 1970s, the ties were lukewarm, since the Shah of Iran Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi was close to the US.
• China’s topmost leader Hua Guofeng (1976-81) — who became the chief of
Communist Party of China after Premier Zhou Enlai and Chairman Mao
Zedong — was one of the last foreign leaders to visit the Shah in August 1978,
before he was overthrown in 1979. The visit is said to have left a very strong
negative sentiment about China among Iranians.
• After Shah was overthrown during the Islamic Revolution in 1979, China was
quick to recognise the new government.
• The next test of Sino-Iranian ties came during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). With
Iran deprived of weapons from western countries, it turned to China. Behind a
facade of neutrality, China obliged and the Iranian regime bought cheap, low-
technology arms through intermediaries in Hong Kong and North Korea. China
under Deng Xiaoping, which also sold arms to Iraq discreetly, signed arms
contracts with Iran including for anti-ship missiles.
• Through the 1980s and ’90s, China provided direct assistance to Iran’s nuclear
and missile development programmes. After a 1997 commitment to US
President Bill Clinton by Chinese President Jiang Zemin, China stopped further
assistance to the programme and sales of complete missiles, but Iran by then
had progressed sufficiently to carry on.
• While support to Iran continued under the radar, China was forced to take a
position in June 2010 at the UN Security Council against the Iranian nuclear
programme after the International Atomic Energy Agency flagged violations.
UN sanctions on Iran followed.
• That changed Iran’s behaviour over the next few years, and the P-5+1
(permanent members of the UNSC & Germany) countries negotiated the
nuclear deal with Iran in 2015.
• With the US under the Trump administration walking out of the nuclear deal
with Iran in 2018, China has moved in to negotiate broader and deeper ties
with Iran. It had sown the seeds in 2016 itself, when the rest of the world,
including India, had started engaging with Iran — PM Narendra Modi went to
Tehran in May 2016.

Today, both China and Iran see the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf as regions
of contestation with the US.

What are the implications of this agreement?

• It could offer an immediate reprieve to Iran’s economy that is reeling under the
U.S.’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy.
The International Monetary Fund has forecast that Iran's economy, hit by the
triple whammy of U.S. sanctions, fall in oil prices and the coronavirus outbreak,
will contract by 6% this year.

2
 • From the Chinese point of view, Iran would present a very major energy,
economic, geopolitical and logistical partner and a very crucial role player in
the BRI.
• In terms of the evolution of the new world order, this agreement is a game
changer.
The existing U.S.-centric world order is in decline and a new multipolar order is
emerging in which China is playing a crucial role. China has already cemented
ties with Russia in this emerging world order. Iran has joined this bloc.
• The agreement, if goes through, could attract punitive measures from the U.S.
against China. The U.S. State Department has already said it would target
Chinese companies if they make investments in Iran defying American
sanctions. But China, which is already in a trade and technological war with the
U.S., seems determined to go ahead with its partnership.
China continued to buy Iranian oil over the past year even after the U.S.
sanctions waivers expired in May 2019, although in smaller volumes. In
contrast, India stopped buying Iranian oil last year after U.S. waivers ended. In
2019-20, India’s crude oil imports from Iran were 1.7 million tonnes, down from
23.9 million tonnes in the previous fiscal.

Stakes for India

• Coincidently, at a time when Iran and China are finalising this long-term
partnership agreement, Iran has dropped India from a project to build a rail
line from the Chabahar port to Zahedan, along the border with Afghanistan.
However, under their partnership agreement, China is likely to play a role in
Chabahar’s duty-free zone and in the port.
• While India watches China with concern, what is alarming for New Delhi is
that Beijing is also concluding a security and military partnership with
Tehran. It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research and weapons
development and intelligence sharing to fight the lopsided battle with
terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes.
It has been suggested China will deploy 5,000 security personnel to protect
its projects in Iran. Some reports suggest Kish Island in the Persian Gulf,
located at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, may be “sold” to China though
Iranian officials have denied this.
• With a growing Chinese presence in Iran, there are concerns about India’s
strategic stakes around the Chabahar port project that it has been
developing. The port is close to Gwadar port in Pakistan, which is being
developed by China as part of its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that links
it to the Indian Ocean through BRI.
While India got a waiver from US sanctions for development of the port —
on the grounds that it will help access Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan — it is
still not clear whether railway and other projects are exempt from sanctions.

3
 • India finds itself caught in the geopolitical rivalry between the US & China
over Iran.
• India’s dilemma also stems from the fact that robust support from the US is
essential when it is locked in a border stand-off with China.

WAY FORWARD

• Iran may well be considering a long-term partnership with China, but even
Iranian negotiators are wary of growing Chinese mercantilist tendencies.
• It is true that China has greater capacity to resist U.S. sanctions compared to
India, but Iran realises the advantage of working with its only partner that
enjoys a sanctions waiver from U.S. for Chabahar since it provides connectivity
for land-locked Afghanistan.
• Iran and India also share an antipathy to a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan.
Therefore, Iran would like to keep the door open.
• Nevertheless, India needs to improve its implementation record of
infrastructure projects that it has taken up in its neighbourhood. There are
numerous instances of Indian cooperation projects in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Myanmar, etc suffering delays and cost overruns that only make it easier
for China to expand its footprint in India’s neighbourhood.

The key is to continue to remain politically engaged with Iran so that there is a better
appreciation of each other’s sensitivities and compulsions.

Contempt of court
Recently, a three Judge Bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, took suo motu notice and
issued notice of contempt of Court to Mr. Bhushan “for undermining the dignity and authority
of the Institution of Supreme Court in general, and the office of the Chief Justice of India in
particular”.
The Bench coupled to this another tweet of Mr. Bhushan in which he had said that in the last
6 years, democracy has been destroyed in India, and that historians will mark the role of the
Supreme Court in this, especially the last 4 CJIs. It followed it up by listing yet another citation
of contempt against Mr. Bhushan, this time in a 11-year-old case where he allegedly said in
2009 that half of India’s last 16 Chief Justices were corrupt.

Constitutional dimensions
• Article 129-The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers
of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215. Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of
such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

4
 • Article 142(2) The Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of
India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing
the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents,
or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
• The govt enacted Contempt of court act, 1971.
• The Contempt of Court Act 1971 was amended in 2006 to add a layer of defence for
the person facing the charge. The amendment recognised truth and good faith as valid
defences against contempt of court charge. Earlier, truth did not protect an individual.

What is Contempt of Court?

• Contempt refers to the offence of showing disrespect to the dignity or

authority of a court.
• According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt of court can either
be civil contempt or criminal contempt.
• Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court.
• On the other hand, criminal contempt means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the

authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct,

the administration of justice in any other manner.

• ‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or publications which

have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
• A contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both, provided that the accused may be discharged
or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the court.

Why contempt of court should be punished?

• To safeguard the authority of the Court.

5
 • Help judges work in a fearless manner.
• maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
• Finally, safeguard the interests of the public.

Should courts resort to contempt of court?

• Restricts the scope of criticism and free speech-While it may not be reasonable to
expect that the courts should ignore every allegation there is much wisdom in giving
a wide latitude to publicly voiced criticism and questioning of the court’s ways and
decisions. While there may be a need to curb tendentious criticism of the judiciary and
self-serving comments on ongoing proceedings in mainstream and social media, there
is a compelling case to use the contempt law sparingly, and avoid the impression that
it is being used to stifle free speech or dissent.
• Colonial Origin- It was believed in 18th century England that it was necessary “to be
impartial and universally thought so”, so that the “blaze of glory” around judges would
stay undiminished. Therefore, a part of contempt law criminalises anything that
“scandalises or tends to scandalise” the judiciary or “lowers the court’s authority”.
However, it has been recognised by jurists that each time the offence of ‘scandalising’
the court or lowering the court’s authority is invoked, some tend to believe that the
court has something to hide.
In contemporary times, it is more important that courts are seen to be concerned
about accountability, that allegations, if involve any fact, are addressed by impartial
probes rather than threats of contempt action, and processes are transparent.
Unfortunately, in a system in which judges are not expected to disclose the reason for
recusing themselves, and even charges of sexual harassment are not credibly
investigated, it is only the fear of scandalising the judiciary that restrains much of the
media and the public from a more rigorous examination of the functioning of the
judiciary.
• Observation of SC -In 1999, the Supreme Court had brushed aside some adverse
remarks by activists by saying, “the court’s shoulders are broad enough to shrug off
their comments.”
Text CJ PB gajendragadkar road in 1964 in a judgment that frequent or
indiscriminate use of contempt power by judges adversely affect rather than sustain
their dignity or status. The court has also noted that content does not exist to protect
individual judges judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a
Hardy climate. In case of personal attacks , rules of slander and libel apply.
Vagueness- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously termed the law of contempt as having
a vague and wandering jurisdiction, with uncertain boundaries. The definition of
criminal contempt in India is extremely wide and can be easily invoked. Suo motu
powers of the Court to initiate such proceedings only serve to complicate matters.
And truth and good faith were not recognised as valid defences until 2006, when the
Contempt of Courts Act was amended. Nevertheless, the high courts, despite truth
and good faith raised as defences, proceeded to sentence critics for contempt of court.
• International examples- Already, contempt has practically become obsolete in foreign
democracies, with jurisdictions recognising that it is an archaic law, designed for use
in a bygone era, whose utility and necessity has long vanished.

6
 Canada ties its test for contempt to real, substantial and immediate dangers to the
administration, whereas American courts also no longer use the law of contempt in
response to comments on judges or legal matters.
The offence of “scandalising the court” has been abolished as an offence in England
and Wales long ago.
• Poor timing of the decision as the courts are already strained because of COVID-19.
The courts should focus on quick disposal of cases rather than initiating contempt
proceedings.
Lenience, not anger, ought to be the primary response of a detached
judiciary

Law Commission recommendation

• In April 2018, the Law Commission of India submitted its report no. 274 on
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• The report examined whether the definition of contempt in the Act should
be restricted to civil contempt, i.e., wilful disobedience of judgments of
court.
• The Commission concluded that there was no requirement to amend the
Act, for the reasons stated below:

a) High number of contempt cases: The Commission observed that

there were a high number of civil (96,993) and criminal (583)
contempt cases pending in various High Courts and the Supreme
Court. The Commission observed that the high number of cases
justify the continuing relevance of the Act. It stated that amending
the definition of contempt may reduce the overall impact of the law
and lessen the respect that people have for courts and their authority
and functioning.

b) International comparison: In relation to the offence of ‘scandalising

the Court’, the Commission noted that the United Kingdom had
abolished the offence in its contempt laws. However, it noted that
there were two differences in circumstances in India and the United
Kingdom, which warranted a continuation of the offence in India.
First, India continues to have a high number of criminal contempt
cases, while the last offence of Scandalising the Court in the UK was
in 1931.
Second, the offence of Scandalising the Court continues to be
punishable in UK under other laws. The Commission observed that

7
 abolishing the offence in India would leave a legislative gap.

C) Source of contempt power: The Commission observed that the superior

courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from
the Constitution. The Act only outlines the procedure in relation to
investigation and punishment for contempt. Therefore, deletion of the
offence from the Act will not impact the inherent constitutional powers of
the superior courts to punish anyone for its contempt. These powers will
continue to remain, independent of the 1971 Act.

d) Impact on subordinate courts: The Constitution allows superior courts to

punish for their contempt. The Act additionally allows the High Court to
punish for contempt of subordinate courts. The Commission argued that
if the definition of contempt is narrowed, subordinate courts will suffer
as there will be no remedy to address cases of their contempt.

e) Ambiguity: The Commission observed that amending the definition of

contempt will lead to ambiguity. This is because the superior courts will
continue to exercise contempt powers under the Constitution. If there is
no definition for criminal contempt in the Act, superior courts may give
multiple definitions and interpretations to what constitutes
contempt. The Commission suggested retaining the definition for the
purpose of ensuring clarity.

f) Adequate safeguards: The Commission noted that there are several

safeguards built into the Act to protect against its misuse. For instance,
the Act contains provisions which lays down cases that do not amount to
contempt and cases where contempt is not punishable. These provisions
suggest that the courts will not prosecute all cases of contempt. The
Commission further noted that the Act had withstood judicial scrutiny,
and therefore, there was no reason to amend it.

Way forward
• On the face of it, a law for criminal contempt is completely asynchronous with our
democratic system which recognises freedom of speech and expression as a
fundamental right.
• Besides needing to revisit the need for a law on criminal contempt, even the test for
contempt needs to be evaluated. If such a test ought to exist at all, it should be
whether the contemptuous remarks in question actually obstruct the Court from
functioning.

8
 It should not be allowed to be used as a means to prevent any and all criticism of an
institution.

An institution as important as the Supreme Court of a country must be open to public

discussion without the fear of retribution or action of criminal contempt.