Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

India’s contempt law has three problems. Reform is difficult

The question of why the judiciary alone requires this protection, among all institutions whose public trust is constitutionally indispensable, has never received a satisfactory answer.

Last week, a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, displeased with an advocate appearing before him, censured the lawyer and ordered that he be kept in police custody for twenty-four hours. The viral video demonstrated that the bench’s displeasure was sufficient for such adverse actions. We saw no evidence of a formal hearing or reasoning by the court.

The order was subsequently recalled but it revived an old question: Why does Indian law empower a court to punish criticism and perceived disrespect of itself?

The answer lies in criminal contempt law—a vague and exceptional power that sits uneasily with liberal democracy. From the conviction of Prashant Bhushan in 2020 for two tweets, to the Supreme Court’s ban of an NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter and the debarment of its authors from being beneficiaries of public funded projects earlier this year, it is generally recognised that criminal contempt powers have a chilling effect on public discourse, or more precisely, public critique of courts. We revisit some basic questions here: What, precisely, is wrong with the law itself? How have the courts applied it? What have other countries done and why is it not as simple as it looks? What is our way ahead?

Disobedience vs disrespect 

Contempt of court powers are meant to punish people who disobey a court’s orders or obstruct the administration of justice by judges. For example, refusing to pay a party their dues as per a court’s judgment, lying on oath or physically obstructing a judge from entering the court’s premises are all conduct that would trigger ‘contempt of court’ powers in several parts of the world. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971—Indian contempt legislation—goes far beyond punishing disobedience of court orders. It also criminalises speech that “scandalises” courts or even merely “tends to” lower their authority.

That phrase—“tends to”—is the heart of the problem. It sets such a low threshold that almost any sharp criticism of judges can potentially invite contempt proceedings.

One step deeper: Why should it matter, as a matter of law, that a court’s reputation is lowered or its authority scandalised? The honest answer is that the judiciary derives its standing entirely from public trust. Unlike the executive, courts have no enforcement machinery of their own. Unlike the legislature, they have no electoral mandate. Their orders are........

© ThePrint