Contempt of Court

06.11.2025

1. Contempt of Court

Context
The article addresses the rise in abusive and derogatory remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court on social media, undermining judicial dignity and impeding court functioning. Contempt of Court means actions that disrespect or diminish the authority of the judiciary.

Constitutional Basis and Powers

• Article 19(2): Specifies reasonable restrictions on free speech, including contempt of court, prohibiting speech that scandalizes the judiciary.
• Article 129: Empowers the Supreme Court to punish for its contempt as a Court of Record.
• Article 215: Gives High Courts similar contempt powers to uphold judicial authority.

Statutory Definition (Contempt of Courts Act, 1971)

• Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders, e.g., violating a stay order.
• Criminal Contempt: Acts scandalizing or lowering the judiciary’s authority, e.g., defamatory remarks or attempts to influence judicial proceedings.

Initiation of Contempt Cases

• Suo Moto: Courts can initiate contempt proceedings on their own to protect their dignity.
• Petition: Based on complaints filed by individuals or entities.

Distinction: Criticism vs. Contempt

• Fair Criticism: Constructive feedback and analysis of judgments are allowed.
• Contempt: Abusive language, personal attacks, or unfounded allegations against judges exceed fair criticism.

Key Supreme Court Judgments

• Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arvind Bose (1952): Fair criticism is permitted but limits should not be crossed.
• Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hiraka Ghosh (2002): Contempt powers must be used judiciously and sparingly.
• MV Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015): Defamatory language against courts amounts to criminal contempt.
• Lakshmi Narayan v. High Court of Madras (2025): Contempt law protects judiciary’s functioning, not judges’ personal reputation.

Necessity and Proposed Reforms

• Purpose: Maintains public confidence and shields judiciary from political attacks.
• Concerns: Misuse of contempt powers may curb free speech or safeguard judicial ego selectively.
• Reforms Needed: Clearer definition of criminal contempt, higher tolerance for criticism, balanced protection of judicial dignity and free speech.

This editorial highlights the need for a careful balance between protecting the judiciary’s authority and preserving the constitutional freedom of expression.​