By Krishna kant choubey

Published on: December 13, 2023 at 00:01 IST

Historical traditions are the root towards the contempt of court laws which resulted to be the cornerstone for maintaining the respect and authority of judicial institutions. These laws help in safeguards of the integrity and functioning of the judiciary by determining the role of its authority. At the same time democratic societies protect the fundamental rights to freedom of expression recognizing its crucial role in promoting public debate and accountability.

The tension between these two principles appears in the concept of legal criticism . While an independent judiciary requires the essential role of rule of law as well as it is equally important to criticize its judicial decisions. The historical development of contempt of court law reflects an ongoing attempt to strike a delicate balance between maintaining judicial immunity and allowing public scrutiny.

Objective of the Research

• Preserving Judicial Independence

By defining the boundaries of judicial review, this research paper makes sure that Judges are held accountable for their actions, they are able to do their job without any external pressure that could threaten their autonomy. The independence of the judiciary is closely related to public confidence in the judiciary. When citizens see their judiciary as independent and impartial , it increases their confidence in the rule of law. By setting legal limits to clear criticism, research plays a role in maintaining and promoting key elements of public trust.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights

For a democratic societies, fundamental rights are the important factor which allows the citizens to voice their opinions, critique public institutions and engage in public dialogue. It is an important factor to know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right but is not in absolute form. By establishing a framework of judicial criticism, the research supports preservation of pluralism, which ensures that the variety of opinions can coexist in a democratic societies without comprising fundamental principles of the legal system.

• Ensuring Fair and Open Dialogue

Fair and open dialogue shows constructive criticism which contributes to the improvement of public institutions. Fair and open dialogue necessitates shielding the general conversation from malevolent attempts to erode the legitimacy of the legal system. When participants knows their boundaries, the open dialogue becomes very effective to express their opinions.

• Balancing Accountability and Independence

Recognizing the importance of educating the general public about the legal constraints surrounding judicial criticism. Understanding the role and responsibilities of media for a democratic societies involves media literacy which includes responsible journalism to create an environment of informed public disclosure.

Freedom of Speech vs Contempt of Court

Right to Speech and Expression refers to the liberty of expressing the view freely and delivery speeches but these rights are not absolute in nature; it has some restrictions . On the other hand, contempt of court on the other hand refers to act of non compliance with a court’s or or any other judicial body’s order. Since this must impede the court’s due process. The court will impose a suitable punishment.

Constitutional Protections

Fundamental principle of freedom of expression protected it globally. It examines globally how these safeguards work with, and occasionally conflict with, the provisions pertaining to contempt of court statutes. The study attempts to shed light on the difficulties that arises when an individual’s expressive rights are balanced with the need to preserve judicial power through an examination through constitutional safeguards .

Judicial Independence

The complex link between public trust in the judiciary’s ability to function and its independence. By examining how judicial criticism affects these variables, the study attempts to clarify how contempt statutes protect judicial integrity without unreasonably restricting the public ability to voice opposition. It has become critical to strike a balance between public trust and judicial autonomy.

The Concept of Judicial Criticism

Judicial criticism is defined by recognizing its complexity and range of manifestations in the social and legal spheres. Expressions, opinion, and assessments aimed at court activities, ruling or judiciary as an institution are all included in the category of judicial criticism. The study clarifies the various forms that this criticism might take , from legal challenges and public protest to the scholarly analysis and public discussion.

The Role of Judicial Criticism in a Democracy

As an essential part of checks and balances, judicial criticism allows the public to hold the court responsible for its rulings and deeds. The study investigates the relationship between the general well-being of the legal system and the freedom to publicly criticize the judiciary in a democracy. It explores the ways in which judicial criticism guarantees responsibility in the administration of justice, fosters public participation, and advances openness.

The Concept of Contempt of Court

According to Lord Diplock “The term ‘Contempt of Court’ is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes.”¹ Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, described as a civil and criminal contempt. Article 129 and Article 142(2) of the

Constitution of India, 1950 also talks about the contempt of court

According to Article 129, the Supreme Court will serve as the “Court of Record,” with all the authority of such courts, including the ability to penalize for self-disrespect. Now that we are aware of what a “Court of Record” is, we can better see why making incorrect comments regarding a court’s ruling might result in contempt of court.

Article 142(2) also discusses contempt of court. This Article states that when the Parliament passes a law on the provisions mentioned in clause 1 of this Article, the Supreme Court has complete authority to issue an order requiring anyone’s attendance, production of any documents, or punishment for contempt.

This also does not imply that if the Supreme Court has the ability to penalize for contempt of court, it may do anything against the right to personal liberty. We know that it is the protector of all the rights granted to us by the Indian Constitution, hence it must protect these rights and cannot violate them.

Essentials of Civil contempt

Disobeying any sort of court process, including its orders, judgments, and decrees, shall be done ‘willfully’ in the case of Civil Contempt.

• The most crucial factor in Criminal Contempt is ‘publishing,’ and this publication might be either spoken or written, or by words, signs, or tangible representation.
• The court should issue a ‘valid order,‘ which the respondent should be aware of.
• Contemnor’s activity should be purposeful, as well as blatant disdain for the court’s ruling.

Case Studies

In Re : Arundhati Roy case

The respondent was found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court of India, and she was given a fine and a “symbolic” one-day jail sentence. Arundhati Roy protested in front of the Court after accusing it of silencing dissent in response to the Court’s earlier ruling on building a dam. Suo moto contempt proceedings were therefore started against her as a result.

The Court reasoned that legal restrictions, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, which aims to preserve public confidence in and uphold the integrity of the judiciary, apply to freedom of speech and expression, which is not absolute. Furthermore, the Court determined that Roy’s remarks could not be justified as fair judicial criticism because they were not made in the public interest or with good intentions.

Justice Karnan Case

Justice Karnan was embroiled in a number of scandals. He completely rocked the Indian judiciary with his unorthodox actions. These involved contesting a judge’s appointment on the grounds that he had falsified his academic credentials. He charged that certain judges had rendered decisions that demonstrated their corruption rather than their independence and objectivity. Then he charged that the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court had petitioned the Supreme Court in reprisal for an order that Justice C.S. Karnan had issued. He even charged that he was the victim of caste-based discrimination from the Chief Justice of Madras. Justice Karnan continued by accusing a few judges of engaging in improper relationships with one another.

Combining all of these issues, the Supreme Court of India appointed its most senior judges to a seven-judge bench to hear a case involving Justice C.S. Karnan and contempt of court. Justice

The seven-judge panel decided against Justice C.S. Karnan. It was decided that Justice Karnan had made offensive remarks about Chief Justices of several High Courts, Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Madras High Court, all of which were found to be untrue. It was decided that Judge C.S. Karnan had no sincere intentions when he made these remarks.

The judge disrespected the court’s decorum by making a publicly unacceptable statement while hiding behind his Dalit card. His acts showed disdain for the Indian legal system. As a result, it was decided that Justice C.S. Karnan, a sitting judge on the Calcutta High Court, had committed contempt towards the Indian legal system and court system and was given a six-year prison sentence.

Judicial Independence and Public Trust

The intricate relationship between judicial independence and criticism serves as the cornerstone of a strong legal system. A cornerstone of democratic societies is judicial independence, which guarantees judges’ ability to decide matters impartially and free from outside interference. In addition, the ability for citizens to hold the legal system responsible and guarantee openness is made possible by the freedom to criticize the courts, which is a fundamental component of democratic governance..

Independence as a Pillar of Justice

Judges are guaranteed to remain impartial from the public, private sector, and other parts of government due to judicial independence. Judges can make decisions free from outside interference by basing them on the law and case facts thanks to their autonomy. It promotes the rule of law and justice in legal procedures while acting as a barrier against improper influence.

Protecting Judges From External Pressure

When criticism is aimed at specific judges or the judiciary as a whole, it can affect how decisions are made or damage public confidence. Judicial independence and criticism are related because judges must be protected from excessive external pressures resulting from political or public opinion. The preservation of the legal system’s integrity depends on this protection.

Balancing Accountability and Independence

Judicial independence is important, but it does not mean that you are above criticism. The connection is finding a careful middle ground between honoring judges’ independence and making sure they are held responsible for their rulings. Juries must maintain the independence required for unbiased decision-making while also being held accountable for their actions, which is where constructive criticism comes in.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the Contempt of Court Act is crucial for upholding the dignity and authority of the judiciary, it must strike a delicate balance between safeguarding the institution and respecting the fundamental right to freedom of speech. Judicial criticism is an integral part of a vibrant democracy, fostering accountability and transparency. However, the Act establishes limits to prevent undue interference in the administration of justice.

The courts play a pivotal role in ensuring the rule of law, and criticism, if constructive and made in good faith, should not be stifled. Yet, the Act empowers the judiciary to act against statements that pose a genuine risk of undermining public confidence in the judiciary or obstructing the course of justice.

In essence, while the Contempt of Court Act sets boundaries on criticism to preserve the dignity of the judiciary, it should not be interpreted as a tool to stifle legitimate dissent or scrutiny. Striking this delicate balance ensures that the judiciary remains strong, accountable, and responsive to the needs of a democratic society.