What the law says?

The contempt law in India assumed significance over time. Earlier it was considered inadequate hence it was thought pertinent to revisit the law considering the victim interests and other constitutionally relevant factors. Consequently a review committee of experts was set up in 1961 under the supervision of Mr. H N Sanyai, then additional solicitor general of India.

The committee made recommendations and other observations to make the contempt laws commensurate with other laws. Eventually Government of India accepted, by and large all the said recommendations. Consequently Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was passed and operational.

What exactly is contempt? Although it is not objectively defined in the Act, the procedure for conducting the contempt trial and the punishments are defined in the Act. Contempts, broadly speaking, are of two types; one is civil in which orders of concerned court are alleged to have been violated, ignored, bypassed. The concerned court treats it an interference in the justice delivery system together with undermining the authority of court or law; as such proceeds against the guilty. Another contempt is criminal contempt. It is more serious in nature than the former. Usually, it is taken as allegation against the judge or the functioning of court which is believed to affect directly the integrity of presiding officer with consequent effects on public confidence reposed in judge and courts to seek justice.

However, this type of contempt is more or less subjective in nature which requires personal satisfaction of the presiding officer that certain act of the accused in real sense amounts to contempt?  The critical reading section 2 with allied sub clause a, b, and c of the Act three principle ingredients must be there to ordinarily constitute contempt. Scandalise or tend to scandalise the authority of court, prejudice, or interference, or tend to interfere in the administration of justice, obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice – these are the ingredients that constitute commission of contempt. The criminal contempt says any publication in words spoken, by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, having any one or all above discussed ingredients present constitutes criminal contempt.

In India where constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression/liberty have vast recognition and coverage which is inclusive of other personal rights like right to liberty, enough care is taken to rationalise  the consequences of contempt proceedings without offending any of such constitutional guarantees. The serious consideration is the subjectivity on adjudging the ingredients constituting the criminal contempt. Commenting with fair criticism on judgments though immune from contempt yet is always subject to court Choice. The press comments, signs or visible representation not having specific explanations are quite risk oriented things to attract contempt of court. Offending presiding officer though understandable again assumes contradictions in assessment of legal accuracy to indict guilty with contempt. Reason, a judge becomes a judge in  his/her own cause?

Still ahead it is not clear if person of a judge is maligned, would it amount to contempt to the person of judge, or court? Relevance to assume query is visible as definition of court is little broader which is inclusive of advocate being officer of court. Though safeguards are duly provided under section 3 to 7 of contempt of courts act 1971, yet, in this whole process subjective satisfaction of the judge works too. Nevertheless, Supreme Court and High Courts have inherent power to initiate contempt on suo moto basis or on the basis reported by subordinate courts. Mostly, contempt of court refers to unwarranted behaviour displayed by the contemptor yet, intentional disobedience of court orders are principal concerns to constitute contempts. It needs further deeper work to understand contempt in relevance to exposure of truth, free comment, use of guaranteed liberties and of course, the guarantee to render constitutional prestige and respect.

Advocate Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Practicing law at District Court Mominabad, Srinagar