VOL.

2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ITS USABILITY WITH THE LATEST CASE LAWS

Jatin Narula*

ABSTRACT

Contempt of court is a vital legal principle that safeguards the authority and integrity of the
Indian judicial system. In this article, we aim to explore the concept of contempt of court in
India while analyzing its historical background, legal framework and highlighting the
importance of preserving the dignity of the legal system. The article further analyses the
limitations and challenges associated with the current Contempt of Court Act. It also
discusses pertinent case laws and judgments to provide a nuanced understanding of this
important legal principle. An in-depth critique of the Contempt of Court Act forms an
essential part of the article, and it identifies areas where the legislation may benefit from
further clarity. This article attempts to thoroughly examine the principle of contempt of court
in India and its significance in upholding the rule of law and ensuring a just and fair judicial
system that upholds the principle of justice for all.

Keywords: Contempt, Court, Judicial System.

INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE INDIAN JUDICIAL

SYSTEM

The Indian judicial system extensively emphasizes contempt of court, serving as a powerful
tool by which it defends the legitimacy and authority of the courts. Contempt of court is a
fundamental legal principle that ensures respect for the court, protects its reputation, and
supports the rule of law. What constitutes contempt of court is established, governed, and
defined in India by the Constitution, statutes, and case law.

The law defines contempt of court as any action or behavior that aims to hinder, interfere
with, or undermine the administration of justice or the legitimacy of the court. The protection
of the judiciary's independence, impartiality, and dignity is the primary objective of the
contempt law. It attempts to guarantee that the courts can properly discharge their duties
without intervention or pressure from outside parties.

*
BSC LLB, FIRST YEAR, NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR.

www.jlrjs.com 2036
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

The legislation against contempt of court in India serves two major goals, these goals are
pivotal for the proper functioning of the legal system. First and foremost, it seeks to preserve
the dignity of the legal system and public trust in the courts. Punishing acts of contempt helps
uphold the idea that the judiciary is the supreme arbitrator and defender of justice. Second, it
protects the rights and interests of everyone involved in court cases, including judges,
attorneys, parties, witnesses, and court personnel. Laws against contempt operate as a
deterrent to such behavior since they can prevent the fair and effective resolution of cases.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONTEMPT LAWS IN

INDIA

India's laws against contempt of court first emerged during the British colonial era. The idea
of contempt of court was developed by the British to defend their courts against disrespect
and disobedience by the masses. The authors of the Indian Constitution, who were
responsible for drafting it after India attained independence in 1947, understood the
importance of contempt laws and incorporated particular clauses to protect the independence
of the judiciary.

However, India's contempt laws have changed over time as a result of judicial decisions and
legislative actions. The main piece of legislation governing contempt in the nation is the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. The Contempt of Courts Act offers guidelines for
determining and penalizing acts of contempt in the Supreme Court and lower courts.
However, the Act does not give the courts unrestricted authority to penalize contempt. It
acknowledges the necessity of striking a balance between the right to free speech and the
execution of justice.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Contempt of court is covered by clauses in the Indian Constitution. While Article 215 1 grants
the High Courts the same authority, the Supreme Court has that authority under Article 129 2.
These constitutional clauses reaffirm the judiciary's right to uphold its honor and integrity.

The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 establishes the legal foundation for handling contempt
matters. The steps for starting a contempt proceeding are outlined, along with definitions of

1
Constitution of India 1950, art 215
2
Constitution of India 1950, art 129

www.jlrjs.com 2037
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

civil and criminal contempt. Both criminal and civil contempt cover actions that embarrass or
undermine the legitimacy of the court. Criminal contempt entails the willful defiance of court
orders. The Act specifies the circumstances in which contempt can be penalized, including
the necessity of intentional purpose.

The Act also recognizes some defenses against contempt, including the dissemination of
accurate and genuine news of court proceedings and reasonable criticism of judicial actions.
These defenses achieve a balance between the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary
and the need to protect the freedom of speech and expression.

In conclusion, India's statutes against contempt of court protect the authority, independence,
and impartiality of the judiciary. The constitutional clauses and the Contempt of Courts Act
of 1971 provide the legal framework to confront and penalize disrespectful behavior.

CIVIL CONTEMPT

Civil contempt is defined as the deliberate disrespect of any verdict, decree, direction, order,
writ, or other order imposed by a court in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 3.
This section also covers a willful violation of an undertaking given to a court. This legislative
provision makes it abundantly apparent that actions that make it difficult for the court to carry
out its tasks or obligations constitute civil contempt.

If someone willfully disobeys a court order or breaks a commitment they made in front of the
court, they may be punished in civil contempt. It is critical to know that civil contempt
underlines the need of upholding court rulings and defending the justice system's impartiality.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Criminal Contempt in India includes a wider range of behaviors that are deemed insulting to
the prestige and authority of the courts, interfere with the proper conduct of a legal case, or
otherwise hinder the administration of justice. It is defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 19714. Criminal contempt offenses can be perpetrated using a variety of tools,
including spoken or written words, signals, physical manifestations, or any other form of
expression.

3
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s2(b)
4
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s2(c)

www.jlrjs.com 2038
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

Criminal contempt is comprised of three distinct types of behavior. First of all, this includes
any publication—verbal or written—that debases or tries to debase the authority of the court
or scandalizes or tends to scandalize the court. These actions attempt to maintain the
judiciary's stature and reputation.

Second, criminal contempt includes any actions that obstruct or attempt to obstruct the proper
administration of justice. This includes behaviors that impede the execution of the law and
the fair and impartial operation of the legal system.

Criminal contempt also encompasses behaviors that obstruct, hinder, or otherwise tend to
obstruct the administration of justice. This includes actions that hinder the administration of
justice, whether or not they are specifically related to a particular case.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: CONTEMPT OF COURT LAWS ACROSS THE

GLOBE

The act is in line with international norms that safeguard free speech while protecting the
integrity of the judiciary and permits valid criticism of judicial actions in the public interest.
However, more clarification is required to bring it into compliance with international norms,
particularly regarding the term "scandalizing the court."

Although the Act stipulates penalties for both civil and criminal contempt, it is vital to make
sure that these penalties are proportionate and consider each person's unique situation, as
stressed by international conventions. The right to legal counsel and tighter burden of
evidence requirements are two procedural safeguards that should be strengthened to bring
Indian law closer to international norms.

Although the Act gives the alleged contravener a chance to be heard, more protections ought
to be taken into account to guarantee justice and openness in conformity with international
norms.

International norms emphasize how crucial it is to only ever use contempt powers as a last
resort to protect the administration of justice. It's crucial to strike the proper balance between
upholding the judiciary's authority and allowing for candid criticism. This balance is
constantly being discussed, especially when it comes to media coverage and public interest
issues.

www.jlrjs.com 2039
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

LIMITATION PERIOD

As with most laws, the contempt of court law also stipulates a certain window of time within
which to begin contempt proceedings, as stated in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
19715. After the passing of a year from the date on which the claimed contempt occurred, no
court, not even a high court, can begin contempt proceedings.

This restriction plays a significant role in ensuring that contempt cases are filed promptly. It
promotes the quick administration of justice by preventing needless delays at the beginning
of proceedings. The Act attempts to find a balance between dealing with acts of contempt and
preventing unnecessarily prolonging such cases by providing a time limit.

The one-year restriction gives parties a reasonable amount of time to voice their concerns or
take legal action against alleged violators. As time may impact the availability of evidence or
people's memories of events, it also promotes quick action and may jeopardize the fairness of
the proceedings. This clause contributes to the ongoing efficacy and efficiency of the
adjudication of contempt.

DEFENSES UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURT

Defenses in Civil Contempt

No knowledge of the order: A person cannot be held in contempt if they claim to be

unaware of the order. The law requires the successful party to serve a certified copy of the
order on the other party, either personally or by registered speed post. This defense argues
that the alleged contemnor was not formally served with the certified copy of the order. 6

Non-willful disobedience or breach: It can be argued that any disobedience or breach of the
order was not intentional but occurred due to accidental, administrative, or other
uncontrollable reasons. This defense is viable when the order has been ultimately complied
with, and a reasonable explanation is provided for the initial non-compliance.7

Vague or ambiguous order: If the court's order is unclear, ambiguous, or incomplete, it can
serve as a defense. The alleged contemnor can claim that the order cannot be complied with

5
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s20
6
VidhiKKumar, 'Contempt of Court: Analysis'<https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-472-contempt-
of-court-analysis.html/> accessed on 22 June 2023
7
VidhiKKumar [n 6]

www.jlrjs.com 2040
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

as it is impossible to do so due to its lack of specificity. The Supreme Court has clarified that
in such cases, the parties should seek clarification from the original court to remove any
ambiguities. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. State of Bihar 8,
clarified the legal position by holding that parties should approach the court and get the
ambiguity removed in case the order is incomplete and ambiguous. 9

Compliance with the order: A strong defense can be built by demonstrating full compliance
with the court's order. If the alleged contemnor can prove that they have complied with the
order to the best of their ability, it can weaken the contempt allegations against them. 10

Defenses in Criminal Contempt

Fair and accurate reporting of legal processes: Under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act,
no one can be punished in contempt for publishing a fair and accurate report of legal
proceedings. However, there are exceptions if the court specifically forbade the publishing
due to public policy, public order, state security, or details about a secret procedure,
discovery, or innovation. This defense guarantees the fairness and openness of the legal
system.

Fair criticism of court action is not regarded as contempt when it is published concerning a
case that has already been determined on its merits. Fair criticism must be offered in good
faith and free of any suspicion of bias on the part of the judge. However, criticism must be
supported by legal and public interest expertise. The defamation laws govern personal attacks
unconnected to the judge's position. 11

Bona fide complaint to the High Court or the court to which the official is subordinate:
Making a complaint in good faith to the High Court or the court to which the officer is
subordinate does not constitute contempt. The complaint must be filed in good faith and
without any ulterior intentions.

No significant interference with the due course of justice: According to the Contempt of
Courts (Amendment) Act of 2006, a court cannot condemn someone for contempt unless

8
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors 1990 SCR (3) 744, 1990 SCC (4) 557
9
VidhiKKumar [n 6]
10
VidhiKKumar [n 6]
11
VidhiKKumar [n 6]

www.jlrjs.com 2041
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

there has been a significant interference or potential for a significant interference with the due
course of justice.12

Justification by truth: If the court determines that it is in the public interest, it may accept
justification by the truth as a defense in criminal contempt proceedings. According to
Amendment S.13(2)13, the truth can be used as a defense if it is provided in good faith and
serves the greater good.14

PUNISHMENTS AND PENALTIES FOR CONTEMPT IN INDIA

Judicial Discretion

While the power of Judicial Discretion is not explicitly mentioned in the Contempt of Court
Act of 1971, the courts in India have recognized the power of judicial discretion in sentencing
contemnors based in the past on some case laws and legal principles. One such case is Delhi
Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat of 1991 15. In this case, the court analyzed the
power of judicial discretion in contempt of court matters and emphasized the need to protect
the subordinate courts and the confidence of the general public in the judiciary. The court
exercising its powers from Article 129 of the Indian Constitution 16 asserted that it has the
jurisdiction to initiate and entertain proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts.

It also clarified its inherent powers under Article 142 17, Article 3218, and Article 13619which
allows it to quash proceedings based on oblique motives or false evidence.

Fines, Imprisonment, and Other Sanctions: Legal Framework and Precedents

20
The power to punish for contempt of court comes from Article 129 21 of the Indian
Constitution. It grants the Supreme Court the authority to be a court of record and punish any
defiance. Similarly, Article 215 gives High Courts the power to punish contempt.

12
VidhiKKumar [n 6]
13
Contempt of Courts 1971, s13(2)
14
VidhiKKumar [n 6]
15
TheLawmatics, 'Delhi judicial Service v. State of Gujarat (1991) - A Complete Analysis' (15 March 2023)
<https://thelawmatics.in/delhi-judicial-service-v-state-of-gujarat-1991-a-complete-analysis/> accessed on 20
June 2023
16
Constitution of India 1950, art 129
17
Constitution of India 1950, art 142
18
Constitution of India 1950, art 32
19
Constitution of India 1950, art 136
20
Constitution of India 1950, art 215

www.jlrjs.com 2042
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

According to Section 12 22 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the act of defying the
authority of the court, unless saved by any special provisions, is met with the potential
imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or even both.
Furthermore, according to Section 1023 of the same act, High Courts have the jurisdiction and
authority over contempt of courts subordinate to them.

It is worth noting that in Smt. Pushpaben& Another vs Narandas V. Badiani& Another24, the
apex court said that while the Contempt of Court Act grants special powers to the court to
impose imprisonment, the court must provide a special reason with a proper application of its
mind when giving a sentence of imprisonment. It further stated that 'the sentence of
imprisonment is an exception while the sentence of fine is the rule.

However, an accused may find reprieve through discharge color the remittance of punishment
by presenting a genuine apology, which cannot be dismissed even if qualified or conditional.

The Supreme Court, in various judgments, has emphasized the cautious use of contempt
proceedings, balancing the right to freedom of speech with the duty to respect judicial
authority. In the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 25 case, the court stated that
contempt must be serious enough to interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of
justice. The aim is not to suppress constructive criticism or dissent but to foster trust among
people in the judicial system.

CONTEMPT BY LAWYERS AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS: DISCIPLINARY

ACTIONS

Within the sacred halls of justice, the power to punish for contempt of court extends to all
individuals, including legal practitioners. This wide jurisdiction gives the court the power to
take action against any person, body, or authority found guilty of such misconduct. Every
advocate must follow the code of ethics given in Chapter 2, Part VI of the Bar Council of
India rules26, which deals with the duties of an Advocate towards the court. These duties
include:

21
Constitution of India 1950 [n 2]
22
Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s12
23
Contempt of Courts Act, s10
24
Pushpaben&Anr vs Narandas V. Badiani&Anr (1979) SCR (3) 636
25
Supreme Court Bar Association of India v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409
26
Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter II, Part VI

www.jlrjs.com 2043
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

1. Acting in a dignified manner.

2. Respecting the court.

Previously, in many judgments, instances of misconduct have been deemed contempt of

court. For example, in MB. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab Haryana27, using
insulting language against a judge, making scandalous allegations in Pritam Pal v. High Court
of M.P.28, suppressing facts to obtain favorable orders, and throwing shoes at judges in re
Vinay Chandra Mishra29, as well as imputing partiality and unfairness against judges in re
Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate30.

Moreover, in Common Cause v. Union of India 31, boycotts or strikes by lawyers have also
been held as contempt of court, as they violate the duties of lawyers towards their clients and
the court.

CONTEMPT OF COURT BY SOCIAL MEDIA AND ONLINE PUBLICATIONS

In this digital age, social media and online publications have become very powerful platforms
for expressing our freedom of speech and expression. However, according to the Indian
Constitution, this right to express our freedom of speech and expression is not absolute,
particularly when it comes to matters of the judiciary. With the rise of social media and
online media publications, the issue of contempt of court has taken on new dimensions. It has
become a pressing issue because sharing prejudiced or scandalous content can weaken how
the justice system works.

Contempt of Court by social media and media publications has gained so much attention
recently due to its instantaneous nature and wide reach. In such cases, individuals or entities
may engage in activities that scandalize, lower the authority of the courts, obstruct, or
interfere with judicial proceedings. Section 2(c) 32 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 defines
criminal contempt, which includes acts such as scandalizing or tending to scandalize the
court, prejudicing or interfering with ongoing judicial proceedings, and obstructing the
administration of justice. Other countries like the United Kingdom have testified that public

27
MB. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1834.
28
Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P, AIR 1992 SC 904.
29
In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348.
30
In re Ajay Kumat Pandey, Advocate, AIR 1998 SC 3299
31
1995(1) Scale 61 : 1995 AIR SCW 1505
32
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 [n 4]

www.jlrjs.com 2044
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

commenting on any case on social media that could influence the judgment would be deemed
contemptuous.

The Supreme Court has recognized social media publications as contemptuous. In Re

Prashant Bhushan v.Anr33, Advocate Prashant Bhushan was held contemptuous for his tweet
regarding the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India. Contempt proceedings were initiated
by Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal, who received multiple letters from law students
requesting permission for the petitioners, and he made several tweets about the Supreme
Court. Recently, Rachita Taneja, a webcomic creator, has been served with a contempt
proceeding because of her tweet where she depicted the Supreme Court as biased towards
Arnab Goswami34.

The media is often referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy, holding a profound position
after the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, and playing a very important role in
expressing people's opinions in a democracy. However, its freedom is also curtailed when it
comes to contempt of the third pillar, the judiciary, which includes reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19(2)35 of the Indian Constitution.

As elucidated in the landmark case of C.K. Daphtary v. P. Gupta36, wherein imputations of

dishonesty were considered acts of contempt, this decision emphasizes the need to maintain
the dignity and respect of the court. Furthermore, in the B.K. Lala v. R.C. Dutt 37 case, which
constituted contempt, it was emphasized that publishing scandalous matters after adjudication
lowers the authority of the court and undermines public confidence in the administration of
justice. The case of Rachapudi v. Advocate General38established that imputing malice to a
judge is also considered contemptuous.

It is important to understand that the freedom of the press does not grant immunity from
contempt of court. While the media plays an important role in scrutinizing various systems,
including the judiciary, it is not exempt from accountability. Journalists must exercise caution
and ensure that their assertions, criticism, or comments do not exceed the limits imposed by
the law.

33
In Re Prashant Bhushan v. Anr, (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2020
34
Rohit Pradhan, ‘Tweet and Contempt of Court’<https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4439-tweet-
and-contempt-of-court.html/> accessed 22 June 2023
35
Constitution of India 1950, s19(2)
36
C.K.Daphtary Vs. P.Gupta AIR 1971 SC 1132: ( 1971 ) 1 SCC 626.
37
B.K.Lala v R.C.Dutt AIR 1967 Cal 153: 1967 Cr LJ 350.
38
Rachapudi v Advocate General AIR 1981 S 755: (1981)2 SSC 577: 1981 Cr Lj 315.

www.jlrjs.com 2045
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

In conclusion, the media holds a significant position in democracy, contributing to the

expression of people's opinions and the dissemination of information. However, it is
important to note that the freedom of the media is not absolute. The Contempt of Court Act
1971 and the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)39 of the Indian Constitution aim to
strike a balance between the media's role and the protection of the judiciary's dignity and
authority.

LANDMARK CASES ON CONTEMPT OF COURT

Re: Prashant Bhushan and another40: In Re: Prashant Bhushan and another (2020) was a
landmark case that brought attention to the scope of contempt of court. Prashant Bhushan
tweeted two comments related to the administration of justice by the courts and the then
Chief Justice of India (CJI), SA Bobde. The first tweet was posted on June 27, 2020, and
attributed responsibility to the Supreme Court for "destructing" India's democracy over the
past six years. The second tweet was posted on June 29, 2020, and depicted CJI SA Bobde in
a negative light while riding a motorcycle. Although a petition was filed regarding the second
tweet, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and initiated contempt
proceedings against Prashant Bhushan on July 21, 2020.

The Court formed a prima facie view that the tweets brought disrepute to the administration
of justice and had the potential to undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court,
particularly the office of the CJI, in the eyes of the general public. Consequently, the Court
allowed the suo moto contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan.

During the proceedings, Prashant Bhushan raised several arguments before the Court.

 He contended that the initial petition considered by the Supreme Court in the case did
not have the sanction of the Attorney General of India, as required under Section 15
of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for
Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
 Regarding the tweet on July 29, he argued that it was an expression of his anguish
over the functioning of non-physical courts, which he believed undermined the
fundamental rights of citizens. He maintained that criticizing the current situation

39
Constitution of India 1950 [n 27]
40
In Re Prashant Bhushan v. Anr [n 25]

www.jlrjs.com 2046
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

should not be considered contempt of court, as it would violate the right to free speech
protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
 As for the tweet on July 27, it was contended that the statement represented Prashant
Bhushan's genuine opinion and should not be construed as contempt of court,
regardless of how disagreeable it may be to some individuals.

The Supreme Court in this case determined that it possessed inherent power to initiate suo
moto contempt proceedings without the need for the Attorney General's sanction, as specified
in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and subsequent Rule 3. The Court recognized
that defamatory actions against judges can target them either in their capacity as judges or as
individuals. While the latter is not subject to contempt proceedings, the former can lead to
contempt charges as it tarnishes the reputation of the court itself. When vilification directly
scandalizes the administration of justice, eroding public trust and confidence—foundational
pillars of justice concerning the judiciary—such acts must be addressed through contempt
proceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded that neither of the tweets constituted fair
criticism of the judiciary's functioning, and no genuine intention was evident behind them. As
a result, the Court found Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a
nominal fine of one rupee. Failure to pay the fine would result in a three-month imprisonment
term and a three-year suspension from practicing law.

The court took suo moto cognizance of the tweets made by Prashant Bhushan and initiated
contempt proceedings based on the view that they brought disrepute to the administration of
justice and had the potential to undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court. In
my opinion, the court's decision aimed to uphold the reputation and integrity of the judiciary
while addressing actions that could erode public trust and confidence in the administration of
justice.

Re: Arundhati Roy vs Unknown41: In the case of In Re: Arundhati Roy, a suo-moto
contempt petition was initiated by the court against Arundhati Roy, a prize-winning author.
This case came from the writ petition of Narmada BachaoAndolan in which the court issued
orders regarding environmental damages and the relocation of communities due to the
construction of a dam on the river Narmada. However, the respondent objected to the court's
ruling and planned the demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court.

41
Re: Arundhati Roy vs Unknown (2002) 3 SCC 343

www.jlrjs.com 2047
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

During the case, the respondent disputed claims that it had displayed offensive banners and
slogans and added critiques of the court's operation and integrity. Arundhati Roy argued that
as a citizen and a writer, she was entitled to the freedom to express her views.

The case presented several key issues:

 First, the respondent questioned the court's decision to heighten the dam and move
surrounding homes, claiming that doing so would uproot families and violate their
legal rights.
 Secondly, the respondent alleged corruption and malfeasance within the judiciary,
casting doubt on the integrity of high-ranking officials.
 Thirdly, there was a debate around the boundaries of personal opinion and freedom of
speech and critiquing the judicial system and its decisions.

The court refuted Arundhati’s allegations, asserting that the banners and slogans shown
during the protests were inappropriate and could lead to a misrepresentation of the court's
image. The Supreme Court deemed the respondent's protests to be wrongful and in violation
of the law.

Arundhati Roy advocated for freedom of expression and the right to express personal
opinions. She criticized the court's decision to relocate residences in the name of
development, particularly highlighting the adverse impact on impoverished families. In the
judgment, the court recognized that freedom of speech and expression is protected by the
Constitution, but it has reasonable restrictions to maintain the dignity and integrity of the
court and judiciary. While dismissing irrelevant portions of the respondent's affidavit, the
court found the allegations that impugned the court's integrity and reputation as
contemptuous. Criticizing or undermining the court's reputation was deemed unacceptable.
Consequently, the court held the respondent guilty of criminal contempt, imposing a one-day
imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs. 2000. Failure to pay the fine would result in a three-
month imprisonment term.

In summary, the court declared the defamation of the apex court's reputation as unlawful.
Although personal rights have limitations imposed by law, the respondent's statements were
deemed detrimental to the dignity and integrity of the court and the judiciary.

www.jlrjs.com 2048
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Re: Arundhati Roy appears to be
justifiable from the court's perspective. The court took into consideration the allegations
made by Arundhati Roy, the respondent, against the court's decision and the functioning of
the judiciary. The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and expression but also
recognized the need for reasonable restrictions to maintain the dignity and integrity of the
court.

Justice C.S. Karnan vs The Honourable Supreme Court of India 42: In the case of Justice
C.S. Karnan vs The Honourable Supreme Court of India, the case involved Justice C.S.
Karnan, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court of India. Justice
C.S. Karnan accused several judges of the Supreme Court of corruption and malpractice and
expressed his concerns through letters addressed to the Prime Minister of India and other
authorities.

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Justice Karnanunder
Article 129 of the Constitution of India, in conjunction with Section 15 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. The Court, being the respondent in this case, sought to address the
allegations made by Justice Karnan fairly and impartially. Karnan presented his reasons and
arguments during the court proceedings and argued that he had evidence to back up his
claims against the judges and requested a thorough investigation into the matter. He also
claimed that his constitutional rights were being violated and that he was being unfairly
targeted.

The Court emphasized the importance of the judiciary's integrity and credibility and any
allegations of corruption or misconduct needed to be thoroughly investigated. The judges
reviewed the letters and statements which were submitted by Justice Karnan. After
considering all the evidence and arguments presented, the Supreme Court found Justice
Karnan guilty of contempt of court for making baseless and scandalous allegations against
the judges. The judgment cited Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which
defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or
tends to lower the authority of any court. The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and sentenced him to imprisonment for six
months.

42
Justice C.S. Karnan vs The Honourable Supreme Court Of India W.P.(C) 6278/2017

www.jlrjs.com 2049
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

In my opinion, after careful examination of the evidence and arguments presented, the Court
found Justice Karnan guilty of contempt of court for making baseless and scandalous
accusations. The imposition of a prison sentence can be viewed as an attempt by the Court to
uphold the integrity and authority of the judiciary.

RECENT JUDGEMENTS

M.V. Jayarajan vs High Court of Kerala &Anr43: The case of M.V. Jayarajan vs High
Court of Kerala &Anr dates back to 2010 when a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala
issued orders banning the holding of meetings on public roads and road margins in the state.
M.V. Jayarajan, the appellant, violated the orders and delivered a speech while using bad
language and using unparliamentary gestures. Jayarajan argued that his speech was
misinterpreted by the media and that he had criticized the impracticality of implementing the
court's judgment, which he believed could infringe on the public's rights to freedom of speech
and assembly. He maintained his respect for the rule of law and the judiciary. The Kerela
High Court found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to six months of simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000.

In my opinion, the decision of the High Court was reasonable and the court's rationale in
considering the provisions as serving the purpose of promoting the welfare of advocates and
the compulsory contribution as a reasonable measure aligns intending to support the legal
profession's welfare.

Hari Singh Nagra and others v Kapil Sibal and Ors44: The case of Hari Singh Nagra and
others v Kapil Sibal involved a petition filed under Article 215 in the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, which was later transferred to the Supreme Court of India. It revolves around a
message written by Mr. Kapil Sibal in a souvenir published by the Mehfil-e-wukala, a group
of poet advocates practicing in the Supreme Court. Mr. Sibal expressed concerns about the
declining standards of the legal profession and the need for improvement.

However, later when the message gained attention during Mr. Sibal’s bid for the president of
the Supreme Court Bar Association, it was interpreted as an attack on the judiciary. Two of
the petitioners argued that Mr. Sibal's message constituted contempt of court and accused him
of conspiring with respondents 2 and 3 to bring disrepute to the administration of justice.

43
M.V.Jayarajan vs High Court Of Kerala &Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2099 OF 2011
44
Hari Singh Nagra &Ors vs Kapil Sibal&Ors, CRL. NO. 2 OF 1997

www.jlrjs.com 2050
VOL. 2 ISSUE 3 Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences ISSN (O): 2583-0066

The court emphasized that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial decisions or acts is not
contempt, but a vital right protected under freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)). It
highlighted the importance of rational and dispassionate criticism, untainted by partisanship,
to encourage the improvement of the legal system. The court did not consider it to be a fit
case and has to be dismissed.

In my opinion, Mr. Kapil Sibal just exercised his freedom of speech and expression and
expressed his opinions neutrally. He did not try to scandalize the court but presented his fair
opinion and criticism on the matter. The judgment of the Supreme Court was right.

CONCLUSION

Contempt of court is an essential component of the Indian judicial system that serves to
protect the authority of the courts by upholding the principles of justice. While it is important
to protect the integrity of courts, promoting fair and transparent proceedings cannot be
discounted.

In conclusion, a robust understanding of contempt of courts in India is vital for appreciating

its significance in upholding the rule of law and maintaining public confidence in the
judiciary. The legislation must continue to evolve and adapt to the changing dynamics of
society while striking a delicate balance between protecting the courts' authority and
preserving individuals' right to express valid criticism. By continuously refining and
strengthening the Contempt of Court Act, India can ensure a fair, transparent, and
accountable judicial system that upholds justice for all.

www.jlrjs.com 2051