UPSC Relevance-
Prelims;Articles 19(2), 129, 215,Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,Types of Contempt – Civil and Criminal,2006 Amendment (Truth and Good Faith),Landmark Judgments: M.V. Jayarajan (2015), Ashwini Kumar Ghosh (1952).Mains (GS Paper II – Polity & Governance)
Why in News
A recent controversy involving allegedly derogatory remarks against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court has revived the debate on what constitutes “contempt of court” in India.Such statements, circulated on social media, are being viewed as acts that could undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary, prompting calls for contempt proceedings.
Background
The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and plays a vital role in upholding justice, accountability, and constitutional morality. To protect the institution from motivated attacks or unfounded criticism, the framers of the Constitution provided for the concept of contempt of court.
When India adopted its Constitution:
- Article 19(2) included contempt of court as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
- Article 129 empowered the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself.
- Article 215 conferred a similar power on High Courts.
These constitutional provisions were later codified in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which lays down the definition, scope, procedure, and punishment for contempt.
Courts of Record and their Powers
Both the Supreme Court (Article 129) and the High Courts (Article 215) are declared as Courts of Record.
This means:
- Their decisions are preserved for perpetual memory and reference.
- They possess inherent powers to punish for contempt to maintain their dignity and ensure the smooth functioning of justice.
What is Contempt of Court?
Contempt of Court is a legal mechanism to protect the authority and dignity of judicial institutions and to punish individuals who disrespect or obstruct the functioning of courts.
In simple terms, it means any act that disobeys, disrespects, or undermines the authority of a court.
Types of Contempt of Court
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 classifies contempt into two types:
1. Civil Contempt
Defined under Section 2(b) of the Act as:
- Wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, order, direction, or writ of a court; or
- Wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Example: Disobeying a court’s order to stay a government project.
2. Criminal Contempt
Defined under Section 2(c) as publication or any act that:
- Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court;
- Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings; or
- Obstructs the administration of justice in any manner.
Example: Publicly calling a judge corrupt without evidence or using abusive language against a court order.
What Does Not Amount to Contempt
- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings.
- Fair criticism of a judicial order after a case is heard and decided.
- The 2006 Amendment also introduced “truth and good faith” as a valid defence if the statement is made honestly and for public good.
Punishment for Contempt
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
- Punishment may include imprisonment up to six months, or
- Fine up to ₹2,000, or both.
- The 2006 amendment also clarified that punishment should be imposed only if the act substantially interferes with the due course of justice.
Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases
- Ashwini Kumar Ghosh vs. Arabinda Bose (1952)
● Held that fair criticism of a judgment is not contempt.
● Malicious or unfair attacks, however, can be treated as contempt.
- Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh (2002)
Emphasised that contempt powers should be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases of violation. - M.V. Jayarajan vs. High Court of Kerala (2015)
Using abusive language against a High Court judgment was held as criminal contempt. - Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan vs. High Court of Madras (2025)
Reaffirmed that the purpose of contempt power is to protect the administration of justice, not individual judges.
Criticism of Contempt Proceedings
Despite its importance, contempt law has faced significant criticism:
- Colonial Legacy:
● The provision of “scandalizing the court” is a British-era relic.
● Interestingly, the UK abolished this offence in 2013, but it continues in India. - Threat to Free Speech:It may discourage legitimate criticism of the judiciary and lead to judicial overreach.
- Overburdened Judiciary:There are hundreds of pending contempt cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts, further delaying justice.
- Lack of Clear Guidelines:The process and threshold for initiating contempt are not clearly defined, often depending on judicial discretion.
The Balance Between Freedom and Authority
In a democracy, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right.
However, judicial dignity is essential for the rule of law.
Hence, both must coexist in harmony.
● Constructive and informed criticism strengthens the judiciary.
● Malicious attacks, however, weaken public faith and obstruct justice.
The key is balance — preserving judicial authority without suppressing democratic dissent.
Way Forward - Promote Constructive Criticism:Encourage reasoned and evidence-based analysis of judicial decisions.
- Codify Clear Guidelines:Frame transparent procedures for invoking criminal contempt, ensuring natural justice and fairness.
- Periodic Legal Review:Revisit the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to align it with democratic values and global best practices.
- Judicial Restraint:The courts should use contempt powers sparingly, focusing only on actions that seriously obstruct justice.
- Public Awareness:Legal literacy campaigns can educate citizens about what constitutes contempt and the importance of judicial respect.
UPSC Prelims Practice Questions
Q1.With reference to Contempt of Court in India, consider the following statements:
- The Constitution explicitly defines what constitutes contempt of court.
- Both the Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record and have the power to punish for their contempt.
- Truth and good faith were added as valid defences against contempt charges through an amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: B
Explanation:
- The Constitution (Articles 129 and 215) gives contempt powers but does not define what constitutes contempt.
- Both Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record with power to punish for contempt.
- “Truth and good faith” were added as defences by the 2006 Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Q2.Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which of the following would most likely amount to criminal contempt?
A. Failure to comply with a court’s order to pay compensation.
B. Publishing a reasoned academic critique of a Supreme Court judgment.
C. Publicly accusing a judge of bias without evidence, thereby undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
D. Filing an appeal against a High Court judgment before the Supreme Court.
Answer: C
Explanation:
- Criminal contempt includes acts that scandalise or lower the authority of any court or interfere with the administration of justice.
- Civil contempt refers to wilful disobedience of court orders (Option A).
- Fair and reasoned criticism (Option B) or appeal (Option D) is not contempt.
Q3.Consider the following provisions:
- Article 19(2) – Provides reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, including contempt of court.
- Article 129 – Grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Article 215 – Grants the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves.
Which of the above is/are correctly matched with their provisions?
A. 1 only
B. 1 and 2 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: D
Explanation:
All three articles form the constitutional framework for contempt of court in India — ensuring that while freedom of speech is protected, judicial authority is maintained.
MAINS QUESTION-
What is the constitutional and statutory framework governing contempt of court in India? Critically examine whether the present law balances judicial dignity with freedom of expression.(150 WORDS)