Such excessive power to punish for contempt goes hand in hand with accountability and

transparency to the people of the country who have the right to freedom of speech and
expression which includes the right of fair and constructive criticism and this supreme right
cannot be throttled by any statute or Act or decision of the state organs and as custodian of the
constitution the supreme court has the duty to uphold the rights of the people .

The provisions of the contempt of court act gives room to fair criticism

Section 3 of the act states that innocent publication and distribution of the matter will not be
considered as contempt, Section4 says fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not
contempt and Section 5 says fair criticism of judicial act is not contempt.

The judges cannot hide under the veil of Article 129 and 215 and make it as a shield to protect
themselves from public opinion .Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act requires that the
Court “is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tend
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice”

The object of contempt proceeding is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests
would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party , the authority of the court is
lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by its is
weakened.1

Not every criticism should be taken as contempt ,distinction must be made between contempt
and defamation. In case where wrong is done to the judge personally ,it is open to him to proceed
against the libellor under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. In both the cases contempt and
defamation , truth is an absolute defence in both the cases.

Administration of justice and judges are open to public opinion and bona fide criticism ,any such
criticism which does not obstruct the administration of justice and not undermines the authority
of the court but is a fair and legitimate criticism on the conduct of the judges and the judicial
process is not to be considers as contempt of courts because the courts have to strike a balance
between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the contempt provisions.

1
Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.,10 AIR (SC:1954)