AN ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT- A CHALLENGE

TO RULE OF LAW

INTRODUCTION

Court contempt is defined as any behavior that defies or undermines the authority of the law and
the courts. In Halsbury's view, contempt is defined as any statements that impede the
administration of justice, whether they are spoken or written.

The Apex Court ruled that maintaining the Courts' dignity and respect is a vital part of the rule of
law concept. Pre-independence India, when Mayor Courts were founded as courts of record, had
a notion of contempt of court, which could be traced back to this time period. Contempt of court
is punishable under the Indian High Courts Act 1861, which created the High Court of Allahabad
as a Court of Record.1

For the sake of maintaining the integrity of the courts and the effective administration of justice,
the statute of contempt was created. Contempt laws, including the ability to penalize for
contempt as well as protecting public respect for the courts and judges, are designed to ensure
that insults and bad actions against the courts and judges are punished or sanctioned.

India's judiciary serves as a watchdog over the rule of law, therefore it is imperative that it be
safeguarded from any and all issues that might jeopardize its ability to effectively administer
justice. The ability to penalize for contempt is critical to ensure that the judiciary is respected. If
justice is to be upheld, it is essential to have this sort of authority in place.2

In Re Abdul and Mahtab, the Supreme Court established the principle of a court's authority to
penalize for contempt of court. If the courts feel that contempt has occurred, they may even
impose consequences such as a fine or a prison sentence. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
establishes and restricts the court's ability to penalize contempt of court and controls the method
for enforcing that power.

1
Louis Dembitz Brandeis was an American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States
from 1916 to 1939.
2
K. Balasankaran Nair, LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA, (v) (2004).
Civil contempt and criminal contempt are subcategories of contempt of court under Indian law.
Indian Constitution Articles 125 and 215 allow the Supreme Court and High Courts to penalize
for contempt of the court.3

When it comes to punishment for contempt, the Supreme Court is given the right to do so under
Article 129 of the Constitution. The term "court of record" refers to a court whose records are
admissible in any court. This provision gives the Supreme Court the ability to penalize lower
courts for contempt of court. Contempt of Court Act 1971 does not apply to the Supreme Court's
authority under Article 129 of the Constitution.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Contempt of Court has been defined by the House of Lords in an important case. As a result of
these three objectives, it is possible for the parties involved in a lawsuit to appear in court
without any third-party involvement, and the courts may proceed with their cases without
interference.

It wasn't until 1926, when the Contempt of Court Act was passed, that the High Court's differed
on the ability to penalize subordinate courts for contempt. India's first law addressing contempt
of court was the Contempt of Court Act 1926. The Contempt of Court Act of 1961 was
eventually superseded by the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 after a series of revisions.4

There were two types of contempt: civil and criminal contempt were created by this legislation.
When a person refuses to abide by a court order, writ, or other process of the court or fails to
fulfil any promise made to the court, they are guilty of civil contempt. There are many ways in
which a person can be held in contempt of court, including the publication of any information
that disparages the authority of any court, the interference or attempted interference with any
judicial proceeding or the obstruction of the administration of justice in any other way.

All individuals who interfere with or degrade the dignity of the judiciary will be punished under
the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which was passed in 1971. Additionally, the Supreme Court of
India has ruled that the Indian law's prohibitions on contempt of court are not only for the

3
Mriganka Shekhar Dutta & Amba Uttara Kak, CONTEMPT OF COURT: FINDING THE LIMIT, NUJS LAW
REVIEW 56, (2009).
4
Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times News Paper Ltd. (1973) 3 All. E.R. 54, 71
protection of judges and courts, but also for citizens. A free and fair judicial system is a
fundamental right for all people.

According to the Calcutta High Court's observation, the power to prosecute is arbitrary,
unrestricted, and unregulated, hence it should be used with extreme prudence. Under Articles
129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts may punish their
own contempt and the contempt of lower courts. Condemnation for contempt of court is a kind
of punishment for those who refuse to abide by the court's orders or disrespect them.

There are also some exceptions to the Contempt regulations for reporting on court processes that
are not subject to these rules. One exception to this rule is when the reporting of a court action is
done in accordance with the rules of fairness and accuracy.5

Condemnation for contempt of court is also prohibited if an act severely disrupts or impedes the
proper process of justice. Sec.20 of the Act of 1971 also includes a time restriction for bringing a
contempt of court action.6

A free press and reasonable public scrutiny of justice are likewise fundamental rights that should
be protected. Press cannot be penalized if it criticizes the Court's decisions in an objective and
fair manner, as long as it does not challenge the judges' character or the Court's dignity.

LAW REGARDING CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

Consequences that question the authority, fairness and dignity of an official court are considered
to be acts of contempt of court and are punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The Supreme Court
of India has the constitutional authority to punish anyone who defy its orders.

Under Article 129 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has the ability to
punish anyone who defy it, including those who commit contempt. Condemnation for contempt
pertaining to the judges and procedures of superior courts of record may be imposed. Jurisdiction
is primarily concerned with protecting courtroom dignity and ensuring that justice is served in a
fair and impartial manner.

5
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.
6
Richard C. Brautigam, constitutional challenge to the contempt power, 60, Geo.LJ, 1972, 1513 at 1513.
Certain courts are limited in their ability to penalize contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971.7

CONTEMPT OF COURT CLASSIFIED

The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 divides the expression ‘contempt of court’ into two
categories of contempt, viz.,

(i) Civil contempt and

(ii) Criminal contempt.

The two categories can be outlined as:

Civil Contempt

Civil Contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court, or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Under Section 2(b)
of The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 'civil contempt', is defined to mean willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, order, direction or any other process of court or willful breach of an
undertaking given to the court.

It can basically be held to be any wrong to the person who is entitled to the benefit of a court
order. It is a wrong for which the law awards indemnification to the injured party; though
formally it is contempt of court in fact it is a wrong of private nature. Civil contempt is a
sanction to enforce deference with an order.

Criminal contempt

It is very serious type of act. Handcuffing, arrest and assault of a Judicial Officer by Police
Officers amount to criminal contempt. If any judicial officer is led into trap by unethical police
officers and is allowed to be assaulted, handcuffed and roped, people will bound to lose faith in
courts, which would be destructive of basic structure of any democratically organized society. If
this is permitted rule of law shall be supplemented by police raj, viewed in this perspective any
such incident shall not be a case of physical assault on an individual judicial officer instead it

7
John Charles Fox “The Nature of Contempt of Court” 37 L.Q.R., 191, 194 (1921).
shall be an onslaught on the institution of the judiciary itself. Hence it can be clarified that
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 —

 Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower, the authority of any court;
 Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any Judicial
proceeding;
 Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of
Justice in any other manner”15.

The difference between the two types of above cases is that of procedure which was clearly held
by the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Ajit Prasad16,it was held that a distinction
between a civil contempt and criminal contempt seems to be that , in a civil contempt the
purpose is to force the contemnor to do something for the benefits of the other party, while in
criminal contempt the proceeding is by way of punishment for a wrong not so much to a party or
individual but to the public at large by interfering with the normal process of law degrading the
majesty of the court. However, if a civil contempt is enforced by fine or imprisonment of the
contemnor for nonperformance of his obligation imposed by a court, it turns out into a criminal
contempt and becomes a criminal matter at the end. Such contempt, being neither purely civil
nor purely criminal in nature, is sometimes called sui generis. It is submitted that the
differentiating line between civil and criminal contempt is sometimes very thin and might often
considered being same. Where the contempt consists in mere failure to comply with or carry on
an order of a court made for the benefit of a private party, it is plainly civil contempt. If,
however, the contemnor adds defiance of the court to disobedience of the order and conducts
himself in a manner which amounts to abstraction or interference with the courts of justice, the
contempt committed by him is of a mixed character, partaking of between him and his opponent
the nature of a civil contempt.

Contempt jurisdiction of the judiciary has to be used to maintain the dignity of the judiciary and
also to safeguard the proceedings of the court from external interference. Thus, by classifying the
power of contempt into two distinct categories the legislature till certain extent has been able to
limit the scope of the contempt jurisdiction.8

IMPORTANT CASE-LAWS

Consider and examine some of the historic cases linked to the notion of Contempt of Court in
order to have a better understanding of its scope and purpose. E.M.S. Namboodripad v. T.N.
Nambiar is an example of an important case. Contempt of Court was the subject of the appeal. It
has to do with a statement made by a Chief Minister during a news conference. According to Mr.
Chief Justice Hidyatullah, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, there are different types and
degrees of contempt.9

Main forms of disdain include insulting the judges, slandering the judiciary, making disparaging
remarks about pending court proceedings, obstructing witnesses or gatherings accompanying a
court proceeding with a predisposition to bias in the initial stages of a court proceeding, and
publicly humiliating judges or courts.10

As a general rule, this final structure occurs when a person's direct command over a specialized
or organization of laws brings them into disrepute or dismissal. All demonstrations that bring the
Courts into offensiveness or lack of esteem, or that question its nobility, insult its magnificence,
or attack its status, were included in this lead.

Convictions for contempt of court for undermining judiciary's dignity and authority were upheld
by Supreme Court.

Defamatory comments against a judge, regardless of whether the subject is administrative or not,
constitute criminal contempt, according to the Supreme Court in another instance.11

Throughout the case of Arundhati Roy, one of the most significant debates about the ability to
penalise for contempt of court was place. Arundhati Roy was sentenced for contempt of court for
an essay she wrote titled The larger Common Good, which was also published in a well-known

8
V.G. Ramachandran, Contempt of Court, 6(1983).
9
AIR 1970 SC 2015.
10
Ibid.
11
Baradakant v. Registrar, Orissa H.C AIR 1974 SC 710.
magazine, and she was fined for it. According to the judges, they found the article to be an
inaccurate depiction of the criminal justice system, and that the act of criminal contempt was
justified.

There is absolutely no intention to rehash or reopen the previous debate concerning the justness
of Arundhati Roy's conviction in the judgement against her by talking about the aforementioned
instances of contempt processes.

Convictions for contempt of court for undermining judiciary's dignity and authority were upheld
by Supreme Court.12

Defamatory comments against a judge, regardless of whether the subject is administrative or not,
constitute criminal contempt, according to the Supreme Court in another instance.

In the case of Arundhati Roy, one of the most significant debates about the ability to penalize for
contempt of court was place. Arundhati Roy was sentenced for contempt of court for an essay
she wrote titled The larger Common Good, which was also published in a well-known magazine,
and she was fined for it. This misrepresenting of the court system falls under criminal contempt,
according to judges.13

The purpose of discussing the foregoing instances of contempt processes is not to rehash or
reopen the old debate around the justness of Arundhati Roy's conviction in the judgement against
her.

CONTEMPT VIS-À-VIS ARTICLE 19

The idea of criminal contempt of court has been questioned since it conflicts with the Indian
Constitution's provision of freedom of speech and expression. In the landmark cases of Rustom
Cawasjee v. Union of India and E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, this objection has been
properly heard and rationally answered in respect to Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

12
AIR 1970 SC 1318
13
AIR 1970 SC 2015
Fair criticism of the courts is not a privilege that should be granted arbitrarily. It is not possible
to sue for contempt of court for criticism that is based on facts and is not directed against the
integrity of the judiciary.

Article 19(2)'s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression cannot be reiterated in such a way
that it invites the bias of the court. As a result, the "Reasonable Restrictions" section includes
"Scorn of Court."

To put it another way, articulation isn't a one-time event. For a vote-based system, open
confidence may be damaged by obstructions to their trust and confidence in the judiciary, and
therefore the possibility for articulation can offer little benefit. Because no one is allowed to alter
the basis of court or any of court's processes or demands that may present an inaccurate image.

The general public's confidence may be shaken by any kind of unjust or harsh criticism. Despite
the courts' efforts to maintain neutrality in the process, there has been no specific limit set in
place. The air in this area still has a stale odor of insecurity and uncertainty.14

Publications deemed to constitute criminal contempt would not be punished if their publisher had
no reason to think the judgement was still pending, as has been stipulated by law. For the sake of
the general public, no action would be taken against any criticism provided in good faith and
with the goal of improving the administration of justice.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides for freedom of speech, but that freedom should not
be misused, and unjust criticism of the judicial system should not be permitted to avoid the idea
of contempt of court, according to this view. The line between civil and criminal contempt is
sometimes seen to blur, as well.

High Courts are the ultimate legal authority of a state, and they have a variety of powers,
including the right to condemn someone to death. Appeals from any other High Court judgement
or decision in exercising authority to penalize for contempt of court are allowed under Section 19
under the 1971 Contempt of Court Act. Contempt of Court is committed when a publication
shows bias or interferes with the legitimate operation of a judicial body.

14
Section 13 (b):The court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid
defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.
As a result, a media or paper trial is not considered acceptable since it affects the rationality of
the trial, and it is likely to interfere with the authority of the legal system and the justice system.
As originally drafted, the statute said that a person found guilty of contempt might face up to six
years in jail, a fine of up to INR 2,000, or both.

It is also stated in Section 12 that a contempt of court offender may be exonerated from penalty if
he or she makes an apology to the court. It is not a given that every apology will be given the
benefit of the doubt.

If the Court considers that the application is not legitimate, it may reject it. The Supreme Court's
Article 129 authority should only be exercised when it is in the public interest, according to a
case.

It's also true that contempt isn't always penalized. Contempt of Court Act Sec. 13 states that the
courts may only impose a punishment under the act when they are convinced that the violation
seriously interferes with the proper conduct of justice. " If the disrespect takes place among the
illiterate population in a mofussil region, the penalty given is more severe and harsher.

As far as contempt of court is concerned, provisions have been established to address it. It's
covered under Section 16 of the law. Additionally, a judge of the court may be held accountable
for contempt for obstructing justice or degrading the Court's dignity.

LIMITATION

Sec.20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, specifies the time limit for bringing a contempt
action. Another point raised was the fact that the Court cannot extend the deadline for bringing a
claim since doing so would fundamentally alter the system of law in place. Section 20 of the Act
recommends that the jurisdiction should be abolished when a certain amount of time has passed.

After a year has passed after the date of the contempt, the courts are no longer allowed to
exercise their authority. Contempt proceedings may be started in one of three ways. The
Supreme Court or any High Court may take a Suo Motu action on its own or via an application
from a private individual.15

15
State of Kerala v. P.K.Ramchandranan (Civil Appeal No. 2485 of 2005) (Ker.)
Contemnors may be held in contempt of court by the attorney general, who has the authority to
do so. Third-party applications may also be considered, although the attorney general's
authorization is required. If the one-year limit has not expired, all three of these may be done.

ESSENCE OF POWER OF CONTEMPT

The Indian people have a great deal of confidence in the judiciary, which is largely responsible
for enforcing the law. To maintain the majesty and dignity of such courts and their image in the
eyes of the public, courts have contempt jurisdiction. It would be disastrous for our country's
legal system if this level of trust and faith were to be undermined. Contempt law provides the
courts with the essential instrument to keep the rule of law safe from unlawful assaults or
initiatives.

Concerns about the authority of High Courts have been alleviated by enactment of the Contempt
of Courts Act. The law of contempt is more of a guardian of the courtroom than the judge sitting
there. According to J. Hadi Husain's opinions expressed in Nasir Uddin Haider17, the intention
and objective of the contempt jurisdiction is to safeguard the dignity of law courts and maintain
their majesty in public perception. If a judge's remarks or writing cause the public to lose faith in
the justice system, the perpetrator must be penalized.

As a result of its title, the Act is sometimes misunderstood as a piece of legislation that protects
the courts and the legal profession from being held to account. In light of the fact that the
judiciary serves as both prosecutor and adjudicator, this statute is frequently seen as a shield
protecting the courts from public scrutiny. In reality, if this were the case, it would be a gross
misuse of the court's authority and a slap in the face to the very notion of justice that the
judiciary is supposed to uphold. The penalty for contempt under the contempt statute is not
meant to safeguard the court or individual judges against a repeat of the assault, but rather to
prevent the general public from being harmed. As a result, contrary to popular belief, the court
does not wield an excessive amount of authority here. Furthermore, it is important to recall that
the courts' powers and authority under this act are limited to extra-ordinary jurisdiction, which
serves as a check on the judiciary.
Constantly upholding law courts' majesty and dignity, as well as their public perception, is the
primary goal of the contempt jurisdiction.16

It's not only about safeguarding the court itself against a repeat of the assault, but also protecting
the public and notably those who are subject to the court's jurisdiction either willingly or by
coercion from any harm that may result if the tribunal's authority is damaged or compromised. In
Baradankanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court19, this was correctly decided. Judges are
neither protected by the statute of contempt of court, nor are they afforded immunity from public
criticism. Individual liberty is safeguarded by this piece of legislation. A free and independent
judiciary is essential to the well-being of all people.

ABUSES OF EFFECTIVE POWER OF CONTEMPT

In order to safeguard "the independence and dignity of the court," can the judiciary justify
mutilating free speech? It is not clear if the judiciary's direct power of contempt may be used as a
means of suppression, or whether its value can be justified in terms of protecting the rule of law.
This section focuses on diverse views of the power of contempt and examines the current state of
contempt legislation in India. While contempt powers were intended to strengthen the judiciary's
foundation, in many circumstances they have had the opposite effect.

In recent years, the judiciary has taken on a more prominent role. Increasingly, the court now
serves as both an executive and a legislative branch of government, thanks to the proliferation of
public interest litigation (PIL). Consequently, judicial activism is being eclipsed by judicial
authoritarianism.

It is currently the people who are supreme in an Indian democratic society, and all state officials,
including the court, are there to help them in order to ensure the smooth running of society.
Judges should not exaggerate their power or brag about their status. The public's trust in them is
based on their own behavior, conduct, impartiality, and honesty, not on their fear of being
despised.

16
Katz, Emile J. "The'Judicial Power'and Contempt of Court: A Historical Analysis of the Contempt Power as
Understood by the Founders." California Law Review, Forthcoming (2021).
Using the term "contempt of court" is deceptive, according to Lord Salmond in Attorney General
v. British Broadcasting Council24. Its goal is to safeguard the administration of justice, not the
dignity of the court.

To protect their own dignity or silence those who speak against them, judges should not exercise
this jurisdiction of contempt. Fear and resentment are not appropriate responses. Because there is
a much more important issue at stake, namely, the right to free expression. They should not
respond to every of the criticism they get and engage in public debate, but rather instead depend
on their own behaviour to be the source of their own controversy. " Mendacious criticism should
be ignored by the court, while veracious criticism should be taken into account. He should be
able to shrug off slanderous remarks rather than becoming angry or bothered by them.

In R v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis25, the court said that "no criticism of a
decision, however robust, may amount to contempt of court, providing it maintains within the
confines of acceptable civility and good faith. The criticism that has been levelled here, no
matter how raucous or off-base, or how well-intentioned or misguided, appears to be well within
those bounds."

To punish Wah India's editor and publisher for publishing an article that evaluated judges based
on arbitrary standards, the Delhi High Court in Surya Prakash v. Madhu Trehan26 sentenced
them to jail. An Indian Express article that asserted that "Indira Gandhi's Supreme Court was
filled with servile justices" was not judged to be contempt of court in the Mulgaokars case27, the
Apex Court's ruling. Critique of the judiciary is inevitable, according to Chief Justice Beg. Even
when wholly uncharitable and unreasonable criticism of the court's activities is made out of
genuine desire for betterment, the judiciary should take a magnanimously generous stance."

Due of nepotism and special treatment, contempt of court in this nation is plagued. A former
union law minister accused of publicly declaring that the Supreme Court was for "diamond
smugglers and bride burners, mafia and corrupt" was found not guilty in P.N. Duda v. V. P. Shiv
Shankar and Others28 by the court. His criticisms of the Supreme Court were seen as both his
personal views and a matter of national concern. Fali Sam Nariman29, questioned if the court's
ruling would have been the same if such a statement had been uttered by a regular guy.
LITERATURE REVIEW

“Criminal Contempt of Court: A Critical Analysis of the Different Judicial Approaches” -

Rupesh Agarwal

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression,
and this article examines the idea of criminal contempt of court in relation to this right. Criminal
contempt is discussed in this article in relation to Indian law while also making a connection to
freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression is threatened by the
Courts' ability to penalize for contempt.17

When the problem of free speech and expression came up, a committee was constituted in 1961
to deal with the matter at hand, and it made recommendations based on this consideration.
Justice, according to Lord Atkin, should be subjected to the scrutiny of the public, even via vocal
criticism. The quasi-criminal aspect of Criminal Contempt is evident. Punishing those who insult
the Indian judiciary or undermine its authority in the public's eyes is the primary goal of having a
criminal contempt provision in place.

Law Commission of India, Government of India, Report No. 274, April 2018, review of the 1971
Contempt of Courts Act (limited to section 2 of the act).

This study has examined the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 in light of several constitutional
issues and provided a comprehensive analysis of the same. To begin the study, the author

17
Katz, Emile J. "The'Judicial Power'and Contempt of Court: A Historical Analysis of the Contempt Power as
Understood by the Founders." California Law Review, Forthcoming (2021).
explains how Contempt of Court legislation in India dates back to the time of the East India
Company in India before to the country's independence. In addition, the paper cites different
court rulings and case law to clarify the significance of the Indian legislation's Contempt of
Court clause.18

It was necessary to focus on Article 19 and how it conflicts with the provisions of the
Constitution dealing to contempt of court, which were previously examined in the preceding
study. Furthermore, this study explains in detail several parts of the Contempt of Court Act 1971,
together with case law and explanations for the same. International contempt laws have also been
discussed, including those in Pakistan, England, and the United States. According to the report,
the number of contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Courts as of 2018 has
also been included.[4]

We learn from this that there are still a number of outstanding contempt cases. Accordingly, the
difference between technical contempt and courtroom contempt has also been outlined in this
paper. The court would not be able to take action if it was only a technical violation. A serious
interference with the flow of justice is required to establish contempt of court.[5]

INGREDIENTS TO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

 Interference with Administration of Justice

When it comes to the crime of contempt of court, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not
essential to establish that a particular interference with the administration of justice had occurred
in order to constitute the offence. According to the Court, defamatory statements are only
admissible in the event that they are likely to jeopardize the fairness of the legal system.

 Scandalizing the Court

According to the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of Shiv Shankar and others, mere
criticism of the Court is not enough to constitute contempt of court.

According to the Supreme Court, criticisms of the judicial system or Judges should be
encouraged in a free marketplace of ideas as long as such critiques do not harm or impede

18
Scandalising the fallible institution – a critical analysis of the varied judicial approach on criminal contempt -
Rupesh Aggarwal,
justice. When a person is accused of contempt of court, Judges have the right to penalize him or
her, whether they take notice of the case of their own or at their own request.

It has been shown that one typical method of showing disrespect for the judge is to disparage
him or her in public. The Court must determine whether the Judge is being disparaged as a judge
or as a person. Judges are left to their own devices if the latter is true and the court has no
authority to punish them for contempt. Those instances that are obvious and without a shadow of
a question will be handled with great attention if the first option is chosen.

“The contempt jurisdiction is not intended to uphold the personal dignity of the Judges.”

Second, the Court will have to take into account how much damage was done to the
administration of justice as a result of the incident. Contempt of court will not be punished for
minor infractions. Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, mandates this procedure.

Judges' personal dignity is not protected by the contempt jurisdiction. That has to be built on
sturdier ground. Judges depend on their own behavior to vindicate themselves.

 Interference with due course of Justice

The Supreme Court ruled in Pritam Lal v. High Court of M.P. that it is the obligation of the
Court to punish the contemner in order to protect the Court's dignity and to keep the streams of
justice clean.

There is no protection from the law of contempt if one's behavior in respect to the court
interferes with or obstructs justice. According to the court, slandering the High Court's current
judges is tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice and is thus punishable by
contempt of court.19

It was decided by the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana that words made against a judge that were scandalous and may interfere with the proper
administration of justice constituted contempt under the law of the land. In Dr. D.C. Saxena v.
Hon'ble, the same jurisprudence was reaffirmed. People's faith in the administration of justice is
undermined and the Court is brought into discredit by the C.J.I. It's criminal to treat someone

19
INDIA CONST. Art. 19 , cl 2
with such disdain. Contempt would be shown by making slanderous remarks against a judge's
authority.

“Lord Denning said “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.”

Judges RF Nariman and Vineet Saran were wrongly accused of perjury in the case of Vijay
Kurle, Nilesh Ojha, and Rashid Khan Pathan, all of whom were convicted recently. They were
sentenced to three months of simple jail and fines of Rs. 2000/- apiece. Yes, the Court ruled in
this instance that anybody may remark or criticise this Court's decision. Before questioning a
Supreme Court Judge's skill, honesty, or impartiality, a person must first have some authority or
information to do so.

 How do judges respond to criticisms in other democracies?

The judges in England use contempt of court extremely seldom. The Daily Mirror ran an
inverted photo of three law lords with the phrase "You Old Fools" in the spycatcher case.
Following the Lord Templeman's answer, the newspaper did not face contempt charges from
Lord Templeman. He admitted that he was an elderly guy, but he insisted that he wasn't a fool in
the eyes of the public, even if he thought he was.

This law has been repealed in England since the final contempt charges were filed in 1930.

British Judge Lord Denning said in 1969 that despite having the power to punish contempt, the
courts would never employ it. Because judges in contempt proceedings have a personal stake in
the outcome. The legal concept that one cannot be a judge in one's own case is violated by this
decision. According to Lord Denning, "We are not afraid of criticism, nor do we hold it against
anybody."

“Instead, it contended that the dignity of the Court will not be established and respected if free
discussions about the Court were restricted on the pretext of preserving its duty.”

Bridges v. United States, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1941, said that American public
opinion could not be muted under the guise of contempt. Even while open debates are important,
it claims that if the Court's dignity is not protected, it would be devalued and its role will be
diminished.

There is no immediate risk to justice in Canada's courts, so critics may express their views.
During the Kopyto case in 1987, it was noted how courtrooms are not delicate flowers that
would wither away in the face of disagreements.

Contempt of Court is governed by identical rules in Australia as well. In the Munday case of
1972, Justice Hope said that there is no reason why the actions of courts should not be
condemned as harshly as the actions of other institutions, including parliaments.

That public institutions in a free society can't be supported if their conduct doesn't command the
community's respect and confidence does not mean that they don't need special rules to protect
them from criticism. If their conduct justifies the respect and confidence of a community,
however, they don't need the protection of special rules to protect them from criticism."

CONCLUSION

Indian law's idea of contempt of court is to ensure that the judiciary operates without external
intervention or impediment. To avoid a loss of public trust, it is imperative that the dignity and
regard of the judge and court be maintained.

Trust in the judiciary is essential to its basis, and if that trust or confidence is lost, the notion of
justice would collapse. Another conclusion is that Contempt laws in India are tied to and
conflicting with the Indian Constitution's guarantees on the freedom of speech and expression,
which must be interpreted in light of the judiciary's stance on major cases described below.
Because both freedom of speech and the right administration of justice are of equal significance,
it is fair to conclude that they are at odds with one another.

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 phrases such as scandalize the court' or 'prejudice judicial
procedures' have not been properly defined, making the rules governing contempt in India
unclear and arbitrary in certain circumstances. In light of the many observations and conclusions,
it may be concluded that the judiciary's motivation for promoting freedom of speech and
expression conflicts with its desire to protect its own image in the eyes of society. Contempt of
Court is a hot-button issue in India because of this effort to do more than one thing at a time.
Indisputable evidence has been gathered that the standard of law cannot survive without a
rampart of support for the dispenser of justice, namely the Judiciary, being unhinged at all times
To punish anybody who interferes with the administration of justice is a fundamental right that
the judiciary has. It has also been established that the authority of the court is not to defend the
nobility of the court, but rather to preserve the court's integrity and proper administration of
justice. As a result, we may conclude that the concept of contempt of court is critical to the
Indian judiciary if it is correctly used in a limited number of circumstances. This is only true if
the authority granted by this legislation is used sparingly and sensibly.