oppn parties Contempt Law: Need To Precisely Define The Term 'Scandalizing The Courts'

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
Contempt Law: Need To Precisely Define The Term 'Scandalizing The Courts'

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2020-08-17 08:04:49

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all things legal in India. Therefore, it has a huge responsibility in upholding the dignity and sanctity of the judicial process, without which enforcement of the law will not be possible to the fullest extent. But in doing so, the court has to be far more liberal and flexible than it has been, particularly in interpreting the provisions of contempt of court. In the order holding Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt, the court has not considered the right to freedom of expression but has chosen to treat the tweets of the alleged offender as "malicious" and "scandalous" in nature.

The dignity and sanctity of the court, as well as the judicial process, is harmed if, and only if, malicious motives are attributed to orders passed by the honourable courts or individual judges are targeted for having passed any orders likewise. Unfound allegations of serious nature (including but not limited to deceit, corruption, ulterior motives and bias) against the court or individual judges should definitely count as a malicious attempt to lower the dignity of the court or the judges and obstruct the judicial process.

But the court has to be magnanimous in treating criticism and even if it takes cognizance of some such remarks, must be liberal enough to point out the reason for its attention and let off the offender with a warning. The nation will then know where the offender erred and why the court thought it fit to pull her or him up. Repeated and unwarranted attacks by the same offender will obviously invite punishment as per the provisions of the law.

Also, the time has come to clearly define what constitutes contempt, especially what is precisely meant by "scandalizing the courts". Although the Law Commission, in its report in 2018, suggested that the case against doing away with criminal contempt in India was weak and advised against it, there are several grey areas in the law that are in conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. These need to be addressed properly if criminal contempt stays on the statute books.