Contempt of Court and Criticism of the Judiciary in India

Critical Remarks of Contempt against the Judiciary

Remarks that are contemptuous or disparaging against the Chief Justice of India or the Supreme Court not only draw the public’s eye but also may be perceived as acts that detract from the authority of the nation’s judiciary, its highest court.

When those remarks are disseminated in the media/or are sensationalized through social media, then they may come to mean that an interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice is meant. Such measures violate directly the precepts of constitutional morality, which are meant to ensure the integrity and authority of the judiciary. These circumstances are often the basis for initiating contempt proceedings.

The nature of Contempt of Court:

• The term “appears in Article 19(2) of the Constitution as one of the grounds upon which reasonable restrictions may be imposed on a fundamental freedom. The constitution, however, does not directly prescribe the manner in which contempt may be instigated.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts in India is(are) deemed and the law deems these courts to be courts of record pursuant to Articles 129 and 215, respectively. A court of record has not only the ability to keep its rulings for the purposes of establishing a future reference for other courts, but it also has the inherent ability to punish for contempt. This authority comes from the Constitution and is codified in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Contempt of Civil and Criminal:

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 distinguishes contempt into two categories:

• Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)):

Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order or writ of any court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the court.

• Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)):

Act or ads: (spoke, written or visual, or otherwise), that does one of the following:

1.scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court;

2.prejudices, interferes with, or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings; or

3. interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.

This distinction indicates contempt is not just a lack of respect for the court; contempt is an act that interferes with the normal functioning and authority of people exercising judicial functions.

 The Commencement of Contempt Proceedings:

• The Supreme Court or High Courts can start contempt proceedings suo moto (on their own motion) if they see or read in good faith contemptuous matter. Either a 3rd party can also initiate the proceedings if the party has the permission of the Attorney General (for Supreme Court) or Advocate General (for High Court). This requirement prevents contempt actions from being frivolous, and imposes a legal safeguard.

Limits of Fair Criticism:

It is a well-settled principle that fair criticism of court decisions and judgments cannot constitute contempt. Courts can separate responsible, constructive criticism from contempt.

By the clarification provided in Ashwini Kumar Ghosh vs. Arabinda Bose (1952) to the effect that criticism could not go beyond the limits of fair comment; and in Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh (2002) the Supreme Court mentioned that when such a power to punish for contempt exists, it must caution against all usage to punish for contempt if no clear contempt of court is established.

A few landmark cases have provided some directions on the scope of contempt law in India.

1. V. Jayarajan vs. High Court of Kerala (2015): The court found a man guilty of contempt for using impolite language in some public speeches criticizing a decision of the High Court. Also, reaffirmed that abuse of the Judiciary in public can be criminal contempt.

Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan vs. High Court of Madras (2025): That even though contempt law was punishment, the law was really meant simply to be punishment to ensure administration of justice and the respect and authority of the court.

Both cases illustrate that contempt was not contrived to limit speech, but to protect the dignity and integrity of the functional judiciary.

Criticism is permitted, but it must be factual and responsible critcism. Misrepresentation, abusive language, or degrading the authority of the courts is contempt, but also by those actions diminish the principal of democracy. The courts can also, if they feel it is warranted, respond in ways that it deems fit. Other perhaps more engaging tools of control is the order in which the State provides the service or allows the right to exist, solely with regard to conformity to the particular rules decided by Saskatchewan law.