The phrase 'Contempt of Courts' has reentered public discourse. Many individuals are curious about the legal framework and its implications for freedom of speech.

Originating in twelfth-century England, the concept of Contempt of Court aimed to preserve the dignity of the judicial system. Over time, this legal principle transcended borders, including India, and evolved with societal changes. In India, the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 serves as the governing legislation. Below, we delve into the notion of Criminal Contempt as outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act.

Understanding Contempt of Court
Rather than providing a precise definition, Indian law identifies contempt of court as comprising two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt, each defined subsequently.

Civil Contempt
Civil contempt encompasses any deliberate disobedience of a court order or undertaking. Its scope is narrower compared to criminal contempt.

Criminal Contempt
Criminal contempt can occur through actions or the publication of material that:

(i) Scandalizes or undermines the authority of any court;
(ii) Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings;
(iii) Obstructs the administration of justice in any manner.

'Publication' under this law includes various forms such as spoken or written words, signs, and visible representations. Unlike civil contempt, criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated without a pre-existing court order, as demonstrated in the case of Prashant Bhushan's tweets.

Statements targeting a judge's private life may constitute defamation rather than criminal contempt. However, statements concerning a judge's official actions are deemed criminal contempt, as they undermine the administration of justice and public perception of the court.

Initiating Contempt Proceedings
According to the Act, only the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Judicial Commissioners of Union Territories can initiate contempt proceedings. Subordinate courts can refer matters to their respective High Courts. Contempt proceedings can be initiated in two scenarios:

When the alleged act occurs in the court's presence:

The court can detain the individual and conduct a trial promptly.
The accused is informed of the charges and provided an opportunity to defend themselves.
They may request a different judge to hear their case if deemed necessary.
When the alleged act occurs outside the court's presence:

The court can take up the case based on information or referral by a legal officer.
Individuals can also apply to initiate contempt proceedings, subject to written consent from specified legal authorities.
Defenses Against Contempt Charges
The Act recognizes several defenses against contempt charges, including:

Fair Comment: Criticism of judicial acts or proceedings is permissible if fair and accurate.
Innocent Publication: Individuals may plead ignorance of pending proceedings or lack of intent to prejudice them.
Truth: Statements made in the public interest and with good intentions are defensible.
Complaint against a Subordinate Court's Presiding Officer: Complaints made in good faith are not contemptuous.

Punishments for Contempt
Upon being found guilty of contempt, individuals may apologize to the court to avoid further penalties. Failure to apologize or insincere apologies may result in fines or imprisonment. The Supreme Court has broader discretion in imposing penalties compared to High Courts.

Appealing Against Contempt Orders
Individuals found guilty of contempt can appeal decisions to higher courts. However, appeals must adhere to specific procedural guidelines outlined in the Act.

While the Act provides for limited appeals, individuals can seek redress through alternative legal avenues, such as constitutional provisions.

Share this News