Contempt of court: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* “Criticising judges is not a crime” */

2026-04-16T18:32:20Z

‎“Criticising judges is not a crime”

Jyoti: /* Lower courts and contempt cases */

2026-02-27T08:07:36Z

‎Lower courts and contempt cases

Jyoti: /* SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021 */

2025-05-23T07:25:49Z

‎SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021

Jyoti at 07:19, 23 May 2025

2025-05-23T07:19:27Z

Jyoti: /* “Criticising judges is not a crime” */

2022-12-16T20:56:38Z

‎“Criticising judges is not a crime”

Jyoti: /* SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021 */

2021-09-06T19:15:04Z

‎SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021

Jyoti: /* Judges accountable to society, not scared of fair criticism */

2021-06-05T18:28:26Z

‎Judges accountable to society, not scared of fair criticism

Jyoti: Jyoti moved page Contempt of court : India to Contempt of court: India without leaving a redirect

2020-09-18T22:02:20Z

Jyoti moved page Contempt of court : India to Contempt of court: India without leaving a redirect

Jyoti at 22:01, 18 September 2020

2020-09-18T22:01:26Z

Jyoti: /* Judge vs. judge */

2020-09-14T09:27:38Z

‎Judge vs. judge

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Where then is the certainty and consistency in the law of contempt of court? Is it not “dog's law“ as Bentham called it?
 Moreover, it is settled law that contempt jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. In other words, a judge is not bound to take action even if contempt of court has indeed been committed.Personally in my 20 years' career as a judge i dismissed perhaps 99% of contempt petitions, saying i was not inclined to take any action.
@@ Line 53: / Line 54: @@
 At this the judges tore up the leaflet and also started laughing.
 ==History, issues==

@@ Line 340: / Line 340: @@
 =Lower courts and contempt cases=
 ==SC bar on contempt cases in lower courts==
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=SC-bar-on-contempt-cases-in-lower-courts-03012017009009  AmitAnand Choudhary, Jan 03 2017, The Times of India]
@@ Line 354: / Line 353: @@
 “The power to punish for contempt vested in a court of record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court“ a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice A M Khanwilkar said.
 =Misuse of power=

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 The SC noted that despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear before the apex court to assist in the hearing. But, it decided to go ahead with the hearing and look into the merits of the allegations given the importance of the issue.
-== SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021==
+==SC lays down criterion for contempt/ 2021==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/06/04&entity=Ar01218&sk=3D8232CF&mode=text  June 4, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 While examining the submissions of the petitioners,, the bench noted that the orders passed by the HC and the apex court do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages as such. PTI
 ==Contempt power protects rights of people, not court’s dignity: HC==

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 </div> Additional information may please be sent as messages to <br/> the Facebook community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. <br/>All information used will be acknowledged in your name.
 |}
@@ Line 428: / Line 427: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA
 CONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 16 December 2022
Line 54:		Line 54:

	At this the judges tore up the leaflet and also started laughing.		At this the judges tore up the leaflet and also started laughing.
		+
		+	==History, issues==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=04_12_2022_022_014_cap_TOI Dec 4, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Should the judiciary be subject to criticism? This should be a rhetorical question. But criticism of the judiciary is circumscribed. As everyone knows, and as the Constitution states, the right to free speech (Article 19) isn’t absolute. It is constrained and that restriction includes “contempt of court”. The insertion was debated in Constituent Assembly debates on October 17, 1949.
		+
		+	Those who write on this are likely to quote R K Sidhva from those debates. “…In cases of contempt of court, the high court judge is the prosecutor and he himself sits and decides cases in which he himself has felt that contempt of court has been committed… After all, judges have not got two horns; they are also human beings. They are liable to commit mistakes. ”
		+	Beyond Article 19(2), there are Articles 129 and 215. The first permits the Supreme Court to punish contempt of court of SC, the second permits high courts (HCs) to punish contempt of court of HCs. Add to that Entry 77 in Union List and Entry 14 in Concurrent List. (1) What is contempt? (2) Who decides there has been contempt? (3) Who punishes? All three are important questions and (2) and (3) are related.
		+
		+	There were earlier Contempt of Court Acts (CCAs), in 1926 and 1952. But today’s law, based on the 1963 H N Sanyal committee on contempt law, is the 1971 statute. In common parlance, by contempt, we understand disobedience of court orders and interference with administration of justice. There have been quite a few cases of such contempt, when aspersions have been cast on specific judges, or mala fide motives attributed. The law separately defines these as civil and criminal contempt. “Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. ” This is what we normally understand by contempt and indeed, such action should be treated with contempt and chastisement. All jurisdictions have such provisions and there is less subjectivity for civil contempt. However, common law jurisdictions, unlike civil law jurisdictions, also have provisions on criminal contempt, inherently more subjective.
		+
		+	The 1971 statute defines it thus. “Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which — (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. ” One can understand that part about interfering with a judicial proceeding or administration of justice. What is this about a court being scandalised? The language, imported and implanted from elsewhere, is courtesy the Sanyal committee. The cognoscenti will know it was imported from Britain and those fond of quoting case law will quote the 1899 McLeod versus St Aubyn case.
		+
		+	In that case, the judicial committee of the privy council actually said, the scandalising provision has “become obsolete in this country. Courts are satisfied to leave to public opinion attacks or comments derogatory to them. ” In other words, scrap that provision.
		+
		+	But, it also said, in a bit less quoted, “In small colonies, consisting principally of coloured populations, the enforcement in proper cases of committal for contempt of court for attacks on the court may be absolutely necessary to preserve in such a community the dignity of and respect for the court. ” In other words, retain it for a colony like India, as we have continued to do. The cognoscenti should know Britain has now done away with these scandalising provisions. In 2012, UK Law Commission produced a report recommending abolition and the 2013 Crime and Courts Act did precisely that. (The last such case in Britain was in 1931. )
		+
		+	Our Law Commission disagreed. After all, we are a former colony. It felt (274th Report, 2018) that scandalising provisions should continue. CCA was amended in 1971 and 2006. Especially in 2006, defence has become easier. But the scandalous clause remains. Justice Krishna Iyer became a judge of Kerala HC in 1968 and a judge of SC in 1973. In between, he was a member of the Law Commission. How many lawyers and judges know he fell foul of CCA? This was a case in Kerala high court in 1983 (Vincent Panikulangara versus V R Krishna Iyer). Justice Krishna Iyer delivered a speech on judicial reforms and a case of criminal contempt was brought against him. The petition was dismissed and if one reads the judgment, Kerala HC favoured action against civil contempt. “Contempt may be committed by a person wilfully disobeying the order or process of court or wilfully committing breach of undertaking given to a court. ” It was more circumspect about criminal contempt, including scandalising. That vestigial organ is a scandal. We should get rid of it.
		+
		+	■ Bibek Debroy is chairman and Aditya Sinha is additional private secretary (research) of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister
		+
		+	This is part of an occasional series on legal reforms
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIACONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA
		+	CONTEMPT OF COURT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIACONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA
		+	CONTEMPT OF COURT: INDIA]]
		+
	==Judges accountable to society, not scared of fair criticism ==		==Judges accountable to society, not scared of fair criticism ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:15, 6 September 2021
Line 83:		Line 83:

	While examining the submissions of the petitioners,, the bench noted that the orders passed by the HC and the apex court do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages as such. PTI		While examining the submissions of the petitioners,, the bench noted that the orders passed by the HC and the apex court do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages as such. PTI
		+
		+	==Contempt power protects rights of people, not court’s dignity: HC==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/08/22&entity=Ar02209&sk=1A24112E&mode=text Aug 22, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Stating that the shoulders of its institution are “broad enough to shrug off such scurrilous allegations”, the HC of Bombay at Goa has declined to punish a man who allegedly made allegations on social media against the judiciary.
		+
		+
		+	A bench comprising chief justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Sonak stated that the power to punish for contempt “is to be only sparingly exercised, not to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the people so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with”.
		+
		+	The bench held that the dignity and authority of its judicial institutions are “neither dependent on the opinions allegedly expressed by David Clever, nor can the dignity of our institution and its officers be tarnished by such stray slights or irresponsible content”.
		+
		+	The court made these comments in a petition filed by Kashinath Shetye stating that Clever, who is possibly based in the UK, committed criminal contempt of court by making false and scurrilous allegations against some judicial officers of the district judiciary, and uploading the content on Youtube and WhatsApp.
		+
		+	“Such content, allegedly uploaded by David Clever, is best treated with contempt, rather than in contempt, particularly since David Clever has neither bothered to cite any specific instances nor bothered to lodge any complaints backed by even prima facie, credible material,” said the HC. “The inquiries made on our administrative side revealed the irresponsibility of the comments and the possible use of the uploader as a front by some disgruntled litigants. To take this matter any further might only serve to feed the publicity craze of those that have uploaded this content to provoke, rather than out of some concern to bring to the fore some genuine grievance concerning the administration of justice in Goa.” TNN

	[[Category:India\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIACONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA		[[Category:India\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIACONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 The SC noted that despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear before the apex court to assist in the hearing. But, it decided to go ahead with the hearing and look into the merits of the allegations given the importance of the issue.
 =Corruption in judiciary, if alleged=
 ==Surveys on corruption in courts can invite contempt ==

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
-[[Category: India |C]]
-[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |C]]
 =What is or is not contempt=
@@ Line 359: / Line 359: @@
 =See also=
 [[Corruption: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 14 September 2020
Line 224:		Line 224:

	Would a commoner have been lucky like Namboodiripad or Shiv Shankar? Arundhati Roy would not agree. What exactly hurts judiciary’s sensitivity and credibility is difficult to discern from judgments of the SC. Who makes the ‘objectionable’ or ‘contemptuous’ remark probably holds the key to the action that could flow from the SC.		Would a commoner have been lucky like Namboodiripad or Shiv Shankar? Arundhati Roy would not agree. What exactly hurts judiciary’s sensitivity and credibility is difficult to discern from judgments of the SC. Who makes the ‘objectionable’ or ‘contemptuous’ remark probably holds the key to the action that could flow from the SC.
		+
		+	=Lawyers: contempt by=
		+	== Chaudhary, Nedumpara cases==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2020%2F08%2F24&entity=Ar01103&sk=35415A21&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, August 24, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Minnows get minced, big guns go on trumpeting
		+
		+	Advocate-on-Record Prashant Bhushan’s conviction for contempt of court has drawn angst, dismay and opposition from retired judges, notably R M Lodha, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Their support, along with that of “thousands of lawyers”, was flaunted by Bhushan’s counsel during the hearing on sentencing before a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari.
		+
		+	Bhushan’s ilk, who project themselves as zealous protectors of right to free speech, seldom stood up for other advocates punished severely by the SC for much lesser crimes. Those advocates did not have the “you know who I am” credentials to flaunt. They were minnows who got minced in the contempt of court shredder without the ‘right to free speech’ brigade shedding a tear.
		+
		+	In the last three years [2017-20], advocate-on-record Mohit Chaudhary and lawyer Mathew Nedumpara were punished by the SC through suo motu contempt powers, which too has now been invoked against Bhushan. Pleadings of Chaudhary and Nedumpara and the punishments awarded to them by the SC did not stir a hair of Justices Lokur and Joseph, who were then sitting judges in the apex court.
		+
		+	In April 2017, Chaudhary had complained to a bench of then CJI J S Khehar and Justices D Y Chandrachud and Sanjay K Kaul that something fishy was going on in the SC Registry, which had listed a deleted matter. He also hinted at collusion between litigants and registry officials for ‘bench hunting’. Compared to what Bhushan got convicted for and what he has been saying and reiterating for the last 15 years, Chaudhary’s words were mere background music.
		+
		+	Hauled up for criminal contempt, Chaudhary tendered an apology. The bench was reluctant to accept it, finding hints of justification in what he had said. Chaudhary tendered an ‘unconditional apology’ again. When he was going through the nervewracking process, none of those reputed senior advocates who volunteered and signed resolutions for Bhushan made even a small noise for protection of right to free speech.
		+
		+	Those who sought mercy for Chaudhary included K K Venugopal, Salman Khurshid, R S Suri, Sidharth Luthra, Colin Gonsalves and Ajit Sinha. Forget support, the retired judges had no soothing word for him.
		+
		+	Two days after the Independence day celebrations in 2017, Justices Khehar, Chandrachud and Kaul said, “It was not an innocent act… but a well thought out decision to tread an unfortunate path which the existing Advocate-on-Record was unwilling to do… The allegations made against the Registry were false and there were innuendoes against the Court. The endeavour failed. Every action has to have an outcome. The contemnor thus must face some consequences of his conduct.” Chaudhary was debarred for a month from practicing as AoR in SC.
		+
		+	Last year, Nedumpara had questioned the process of designation of lawyers as ‘senior advocates’ by SC and alleged that it was conferred only on the kin of senior advocates and judges. While arguing before a bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, he took the name of senior advocate Fali S Nariman and repeated it despite warning from the bench. He was convicted for contempt.
		+
		+	On March 27 last year, a Justice Nariman-led bench punished him with a three-month jail term despite Nedumpara pleading never to repeat his mistake. The bench ordered: “We sentence Nedumpara to three months’ imprisonment which is, however, suspended only if Nedumpara continues in future to abide by the undertaking given to us today. In addition, Nedumpara is barred from practising as an advocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year from today.”
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA
		+	CONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|CCONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA
		+	CONTEMPT OF COURT : INDIA]]

	=Lower courts and contempt cases=		=Lower courts and contempt cases=