The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is an Indian legislation that defines and limits the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and regulates their procedure in relation thereto. The act covers the cases of civil and criminal contempt, innocent publication and distribution of matters, fair and accurate reports, fair criticism and complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts, and other defenses not affected. The act defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. On the other hand, criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever that— scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
The act also provides for the punishment of contempt of court, which can be either of a civil or criminal nature. The punishment for contempt of court can include imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both. The act also specifies the procedure for hearing cases of criminal contempt, which must be heard by Benches. The act also provides for appeals and limitations for actions for contempt.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deal with the fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings and fair criticism of judicial acts, respectively. Section 4 of the act states that a person cannot be held guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings. This section protects the media and other individuals who publish such reports in good faith. The act states that the publication of fair and positive criticism of judicial acts shall not constitute contempt of court under the act. This section protects individuals who criticize the judiciary in good faith.
Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that no court shall impose a sentence under the act for contempt unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. This section provides a limitation on the power of the courts to punish contempt of court and ensures that the punishment is proportional to the nature of the contempt. An appeal can be made against any order or decision of the High Court or any other court in India that has exercised its jurisdiction to punish contempt of court. The appeal must be subject to the limitation period provided as per Section 19 of the said act. Apart from the appeal process, the Contempt of Courts Act also allows for the review of contempt orders. Section 21 of the Act empowers the High Court and the Supreme Court to review their orders. The power of review is discretionary, and the court may review its order either Suo motu or on an application made by any party aggrieved by the decisions. When facing punishment for contempt of Court, individuals possess the right to appeal under Section 19(4), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. the decision through various avenues, each subject to specific time limitations.
In August 2020, the Supreme Court of India found lawyer and civil rights activist Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of court for posting two tweets that were allegedly derogatory to the top court. The tweets in question were about the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, and the role of the Supreme Court in the destruction of democracy in India. The court imposed a fine of Re. 1 on Bhushan and failure to pay the fine would have led to his imprisonment for three months or a bar from practicing law for three years.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Effective criticism is necessary for an effective democracy. In the real spirit of free speech, one cannot be threatened with contempt while using their right to free speech. If the judiciary doesn’t improve the existing problems by punishing people who speak out against its orders, then it is just like a dictatorship. A nation that has been silenced loses its ability to see and becomes a puppet of the powerful, which destroys democracy as it truly exists.
The country needs to understand that, amid this chaos surrounding contempt and freedom, both clauses are extremely important. For example, freedom of speech carries international responsibility due to its constitutional significance, while contempt is necessary to uphold the judiciary’s dignity. It is important to realize that there is a very thin line separating “court” from “judges,” and that judges frequently employ the weapon of contempt to defend their dignity rather than that of the courts. In the same way, there’s a thin line separating disrespect and criticism. The goal is not to repeal contempt statutes but rather to recognize that the law shouldn’t be so ambiguous as to encompass judges’ and courts’ authority.
The country needs a clear, liberal, and appropriate law to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and to permit pertinent and constructive criticism of judges, their decisions, and their conduct, all of which contribute to the smooth operation of democracy. Judges are held in the highest regard and are responsible for enforcing the law and punishing offenders; nevertheless, this does not mean that they are infallible or immune to criticism.