Contempt of Court Vis A Vis Freedom of Speech: A Need to Relook? | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Abstract

• Freedom of speech and expression, along with the independence of the judiciary, are fundamental pillars of society. These rights are enshrined in various legal documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Indian Constitution.
• However, the exercise of freedom of speech is subject to certain restrictions outlined in the Indian Constitution, particularly under Article 19(2). Additionally, the judiciary, through its contempt powers, can limit criticism, leading to a debate on the balance between upholding the law and safeguarding freedom of expression.
• Various judicial cases have highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in the functioning of the judiciary. Criticism and scrutiny by advocates, jurists, and the press play a vital role in ensuring the accountability of the courts.

Introduction

• The recent discussions on contempt laws and judicial reforms have brought to light the tensions between protecting the law and preserving freedom of speech. While the judiciary holds the responsibility to uphold the law, the exercise of contempt powers can sometimes impede on the right to express opinions freely, as guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution.
• In a democratic society, freedom of expression is crucial for the progress and development of the nation. The judiciary's role in safeguarding this freedom while maintaining the integrity of the legal system is a delicate balance that needs to be carefully maintained.

An Analysis of Contempt of Court Act, 1971

• Special contempt jurisdiction evolved in England to uphold court orders, ensuring judicial fairness and penalizing those who disrespect the court's dignity.
• Contempt of court, as per Black's Law Dictionary, is defined as "A willful disregard of the authority of a court of justice or legislative body or disobedience to its lawful orders."
• If an individual is found guilty of contempt of court, they may face a trial; however, contempt cases are distinct from regular trials.

Mens Rea and Contempt of Court

• Presence of mens rea (guilty mind) is crucial in determining the culpability of an accused in criminal cases.
• In contempt proceedings, especially in criminal contempt cases, the intention or mens rea behind the action is considered irrelevant.
• Illustration: In the case of Re: Vijay Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bengal was held in contempt for criticizing the court's functioning for public benefit.
• Question: Is the judiciary immune to its own misconducts? How can the interests of the general public be safeguarded?

Classification of Contempt of Court

• Civil Contempt:
  • Defined as willful disobedience to a court's judgment, decree, order, or breach of an undertaking given to a court.
  • Occurs when an individual disobeys a court's directive, leading to fines or a maximum imprisonment of six months.
  • Primarily concerns actions against individuals seeking relief from court decrees.
• Criminal Contempt:
  • Involves acts that offend the court's reputation and dignity.
  • Actions like scandalizing the court's authority, interfering with judicial proceedings, or obstructing the administration of justice are considered criminal contempt.
  • Punishable by a maximum imprisonment of six months, a fine of two thousand rupees, or a combination of both.

Contempt Power under the Indian Constitution

• Supreme Court and High Courts as Courts of Records:
  • Article 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as courts of records.
  • Courts of records maintain judicial proceedings and records with evidentiary value binding on all other courts.
  • Empowered to punish for contempt of court.
• Legislative Restrictions:
  • Articles 121 and 211 prohibit the legislature and parliament from making allegations against judges of the Supreme Court or High Court in the discharge of their duties.
  • Only the President, under Article 124(4) and The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, has the authority to accuse a judge of misconduct.
  • Raises questions about the maintainability of such discretionary power.

Contempt Power: Is the Freedom to Express in Trouble?

• Purpose of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Act was originally intended to instill public confidence and safeguard fair judiciary practices. However, it has transformed into a tool to control criticism and protect judges' interests.
• Conflict with Freedom of Speech: Articles 129 and 215 grant contempt power to the Supreme Court and High Court, conflicting with Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Importance of Free Debate: In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice P.N. Bhagwati highlighted the significance of free debate in a democracy to ensure government accountability and informed decision-making.
• Unreasonable Exercise of Judicial Powers: Judges are sometimes perceived as infallible and are making decisions without accountability. Lower-ranking magistrates also wield contempt powers, leading to concerns about fair trials.
• Issues with Contempt Proceedings: Courts act as both prosecutors and judges in contempt cases, potentially violating the principle of fair hearing. Instances like Mr. B. G. Homiman's case raise questions about protecting public interests.

Legal Regime Concerning Contempt Law

• Contempt proceedings have a unique nature and are considered quasi-criminal.
• Provisions exist in the law against the Contempt of Court Act, raising questions about the validity of contempt law. Key points include:
  • Contempt of court is not classified as an offense under Section 4(2)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • According to the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, individuals found guilty of contempt are not recognized as offenders.
  • Individuals facing contempt are not considered accused under Article 20(3) of the constitution.
  • Contempt cases are tried through a summary process without a fixed procedure, unlike criminal trials under the Cr.P.C.
• The Contempt of Court Act mentions the applicability of the Cr.P.C and C.P.C, but the procedures primarily rely on judicial discretion.
• Summary procedures are followed in contempt cases, bypassing the rules of evidence, which can sometimes lead to the misuse of contempt law.

Judicial Interpretations of Indian Cases

• Views on Contempt of Courts Act:
  • Lord President Clyde, Phillimore Committee, and Justice Frankfurter believe the contempt law upholds the fundamental supremacy of law.
  • Justice Tek Chand, V.G. Ramachandran, and the Allahabad High Court argue that the purpose is to maintain the supremacy of courts and the flow of justice.
  • Justice V.R. KrishnaIyer, K.J. Aiyar, and the Delhi High Court emphasize that contempt jurisdiction protects the rights of the public.
• Freedom of Press in InPrinters Mysore Ltd. v. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer:
  • The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of press freedom as a right in democratic societies, essential for informing the public and ensuring government accountability.
  • The judiciary should be open to criticism and not immune from it.
• Views on Contempt of Court Act:
  • Lord Denning emphasized that the court should not use contempt jurisdiction to protect its own dignity or suppress dissenting voices.
  • T.T. Krishnamachari viewed "Contempt of Court" as a limitation on freedom of speech, arguing that the act restricts even genuine statements.
• Special Jurisdiction of Contempt Law in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India:
  • The constitutional bench described contempt law as a unique combination of roles, involving elements of judge, jury, and executioner.
  • There have been instances of judges demonstrating impartiality in various court cases, making it challenging to determine if contempt has occurred.
• Conflict in Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh:
  • The High Court and Supreme Court issued conflicting decisions on a contempt case, raising questions about the consistency of principles governing contempt of courts.
• Analysis of Judicial Proceedings:
  • Research reveals that provisions related to contempt law are fragmented with differing emphases, leading to varying interpretations in judicial proceedings.

International Law and Standards

Laws in India are influenced by legal systems of other countries, particularly those of England and America.

Position in the United Kingdom

• Historically, contempt of court was considered an offense in England.
• Due to landmark cases like Ex p. Bread Manufactures Ltd and A.G. v. Times Newspapers, and the contributions of jurists such as Lord Morris, Lord Diplock, Lord Cross, Lord Reid, and The Phillimore Committee, the contempt laws in England underwent significant liberalizations.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1981, was enacted to strike a balance between contempt laws and the freedom of speech and expression.

Position in the United States

• Cases like Schaefer v. United States and Schenck v. United States have shaped the interpretation of laws related to freedom of speech and expression in the U.S.
• The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the principle that "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech or of the press."

The comparison of contempt laws in the UK and the US underscores the importance of balancing freedom of speech and contempt laws.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, emphasizes freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right without undue restrictions, a principle to which India, as a signatory member, is bound.

Conclusion

• Achieving a delicate balance between preventing scandalizing the court and upholding the freedom of speech and expression is essential for a country's well-being. It's unjust and unethical that certain rights granted to citizens come with numerous restrictions. Judges, while deserving respect, are not immune to criticism, and excessive protection of judges or granting them excessive discretionary power is unsustainable.
• The Contempt of Court Act has significantly limited the scope for criticism, often leading to a fear of falling afoul of Article 19(2) and being charged with contempt. While respect for judicial pronouncements is crucial, freedom of speech and expression should not be unduly curtailed in the name of contempt power.
• Contempt of court remains a potent tool in the hands of the judiciary, but its exercise must be approached with care and caution, ensuring it serves the larger interest of administering justice rather than stifling legitimate criticism or expression.