The Essence of Contempt of Court and Its Impact on Judicial Integrity

Recent Concerns Over Judicial Remarks

Recent derogatory remarks made against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court have triggered widespread concern. Such statements are viewed as attempts to undermine the judiciary’s authority and interfere with the administration of justice.

About Contempt of Court

Contempt of court refers to acts of disrespect, disobedience, or conduct that obstructs the functioning of the judiciary.

• Fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings does not amount to contempt.
• Fair criticism of a judicial decision, after the case has been finally decided, is also permissible.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Contempt of Court

Several constitutional articles address the issue of contempt:

• Article 19(2): Contempt of court is listed as a ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. However, the Constitution does not detail how contempt proceedings must be initiated.
• Articles 129 and 215: These designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as “courts of record,” empowering them to punish for contempt.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The Act classifies contempt into two categories:

• Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any court order or breach of an undertaking given to the court.
• Criminal Contempt: Acts that scandalise or lower the authority of the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.

Initiation of Proceedings: Courts may initiate contempt action suo motu, or a third party may do so with prior approval of the Attorney General or Advocate General.

Judicial Observations on Contempt of Court

• Permissible Criticism: Courts recognise the importance of fair criticism in a democracy. However, when commentary becomes abusive, baseless, or misleading, it may amount to contempt.
• Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952) and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002): The Supreme Court held that contempt powers must be exercised cautiously and only when a clear violation is established.
• M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015): The Court upheld a contempt conviction for using derogatory language against a High Court judge during a public speech. The SC ruled that such conduct amounted to criminal contempt as it weakened public confidence in the judiciary.
• Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (2025): The Supreme Court reiterated that contempt proceedings exist to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure the smooth administration of justice.

Conclusion

Although democratic critique of judicial decisions is healthy, deliberate misrepresentation or abusive commentary erodes public trust in the judiciary. Such actions threaten the delivery of substantive justice and undermine the foundational values of a democratic society.