How Can Freedom of Speech Be Balanced with Judicial Authority While Analyzing Contempt of Court in India?

Introduction

• The Indian Constitution embodies the principle of the Rule of Law, ensuring equality before the law and impartial justice for all citizens.
• As the interpreter and custodian of the Constitution, the judiciary holds a pivotal role in maintaining these principles, functioning as the “Watchdog of Democracy.” While the judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy, its efficacy is supported by the other organs of government in safeguarding constitutional values.
• Among the judiciary's powers is the jurisdiction of Contempt of Court, a mechanism aimed at preserving its authority and ensuring compliance with its orders.
• However, this power often invites critical debate, especially in cases involving criminal contempt, as it intersects with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Freedom of speech and expression, enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)[1] of the Constitution, is the cornerstone of democratic governance. Yet, this right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)[2], one of which is the prohibition of acts that qualify as contempt of court. This restriction underscores the delicate balance required between upholding judicial dignity and safeguarding democratic freedoms.
• The origins of contempt laws in India trace back to English common law, with historical precedence established by the Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.
• Today, under Articles 129 and 215[3], the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively are empowered to exercise inherent contempt jurisdiction as Courts of Record. This power, though essential for maintaining the rule of law, must be exercised judiciously to align with the principles of democracy and constitutional rights.
• In exploring the dynamic interplay between freedom of speech and contempt of court, this discussion will analyse the boundaries of both principles and their role in upholding democratic ideals. The need to balance these rights is paramount in achieving a society where the supremacy of law coexists with the liberty of expression. 

What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of court refers to any act or omission that undermines the authority, dignity, or functioning of a court. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, classifies contempt into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt, each serving distinct purposes in preserving the rule of law and judicial integrity.

1. Civil Contempt

Civil contempt involves the wilful disobedience of a court's judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other judicial processes. It also includes the wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. This form of contempt ensures compliance with court orders, safeguarding the enforcement of judicial decisions and protecting the rights of litigants.

2. Criminal Contempt

Criminal contempt pertains to acts or publications (spoken, written, or otherwise)[4] that:

• Scandalize or tend to scandalize the court, or lower its authority.
• Prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
• Obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.

The objective of criminal contempt is to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and to ensure that the judicial process is conducted without interference or intimidation. 

Punishment for Contempt of Court

The Act prescribes punishment for both civil and criminal contempt, which may include[5]:

• Simple imprisonment for up to six months,
• A fine of up to two thousand rupees, or
• Both imprisonment and fine.

Courts may also discharge the accused if an apology is tendered to the satisfaction of the court[6].

Procedure for Contempt Proceedings[7]

• Contempt proceedings can be initiated with the permission of the Attorney General of India or Solicitor General of India (for the Supreme Court) or the Advocate General of the State (for High Courts) when the alleged act occurs outside the courtroom.
• Courts may also act suo moto to initiate contempt proceedings in situations where immediate action is warranted to preserve judicial integrity. 

Contempt Laws Through Judicial Interpretations

• Judicial interpretations have significantly refined the understanding and application of contempt laws. The Supreme Court has clarified that "wilful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act refers to deliberate and intentional acts committed with the purpose of defying the law. Furthermore, the Court has affirmed that the inherent jurisdiction of Courts of Record, as enshrined in Articles 129 and 215[8] of the Constitution, remains beyond the reach of legislative limitations. Landmark judgments, such as T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P.[9], have underscored that the judiciary’s contempt powers are intrinsic to its authority and are augmented, rather than confined, by the provisions of the Act.
• In contemporary instances, high-profile cases have demonstrated the judiciary's exercise of these powers. A notable example is the Prashant Bhushan case[10], where the Supreme Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings. Bhushan was convicted for scandalizing the judiciary and was fined ₹1, with the penalty for non-payment including imprisonment and a ban on professional practice.
• While the judiciary's contempt powers are indispensable for safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining the dignity of courts, they must be wielded judiciously. Striking an equilibrium between judicial authority and the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is imperative to uphold both the judiciary’s independence and the democratic values of the nation.

Does Freedom of Speech and Expression Extend to Contempt of Court?

• The right to freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a)[11] of the Indian Constitution and is a cornerstone of democracy. It guarantees every citizen the liberty to express ideas, opinions, and criticisms, fostering a vibrant democratic environment.
• However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(2)[12]. These restrictions include those necessary to maintain public order, decency, morality, and the sovereignty of the nation, as well as to prevent contempt of court.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically addresses acts that scandalize the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that freedom of speech cannot be used as a defense for acts that undermine the dignity of the judiciary.
• For example, in E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar[13], the Court clarified that while citizens are entitled to their opinions, they cannot use this right to make baseless allegations or scandalize the judiciary, as such acts erode public confidence in the administration of justice.
• Furthermore, the judiciary's inherent power under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution to punish for contempt cannot be curtailed by legislation. This power ensures that judicial authority is not undermined, safeguarding the rule of law and public trust in the legal system. 

Balance Between the Freedom of Speech and Expression and Contempt of Court

• Freedom of speech and expression and the judiciary's power to punish for contempt must coexist in a democratic society. Striking a balance between these principles is essential to uphold both individual liberties and the judiciary's dignity and effectiveness.
• The right to freedom of speech includes the right to fair and constructive criticism of judicial decisions. Criticism plays a vital role in ensuring accountability and transparency within the judiciary. However, the criticism must not cross the boundaries of fairness into the realm of contempt, where it scandalizes the court or obstructs justice.
• In Ambard v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago[14], Lord Atkin famously remarked, "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; it must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, though outspoken, comments of ordinary men." This highlights the importance of balancing criticism with respect for judicial authority.
• The Supreme Court, in cases like Prashant Bhushan[15], has reinforced this balance. While suo moto contempt proceedings were initiated for scandalizing the judiciary, the case also reignited discussions about the need for judicial accountability and the role of public discourse. This underscores the delicate relationship between the two principles: criticism must be allowed, but it should not destabilize the judiciary's functioning or its public perception.
• In E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar[16], the Court held that contempt provisions must be interpreted without infringing upon Article 19(1)(a)[17]. The intent behind statements, particularly political ones, should be scrutinized.
• Similarly, in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P.[18], the Court reaffirmed that contempt powers are inherent and cannot be curtailed, but they must align with principles of natural justice and constitutional freedoms. 

Conclusion

The relationship between freedom of speech and contempt of court embodies a delicate balance between individual rights and the authority of the judiciary. While Article 19(2)[19] of the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, particularly in matters of contempt, it is essential to ensure that these restrictions do not stifle legitimate expression or undermine democratic discourse. Judicial independence, as emphasized in landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[20], is fundamental to a functioning democracy, but this must not come at the cost of curbing free speech.

The call for reforming contempt laws arises from the need to refine the application of these restrictions, ensuring they serve their intended purpose without becoming a tool for suppressing dissent. As proposed by legal experts like Soli Sorabjee, a more transparent and context-sensitive approach to contempt could better align with democratic values. This would preserve judicial integrity while fostering an environment where free speech thrives, contributing to the accountability of all branches of government.

In sum, maintaining a fair balance between freedom of speech and contempt of court is essential to upholding the democratic framework of the nation. Reforms that evolve contempt laws in line with contemporary democratic norms are crucial to preserving the judiciary’s independence while safeguarding citizens' right to express opinions without fear of unjust retaliation.

[1] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(1)(a).

[2] Id. at art. 19(2).

[3] Id. at art. 129, 215.

[4] Section 2(a) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 2(a).

[5] Id. at s. 2(b).

[6] Id. at s. 2(c).

[7] Id. at s. 12.

[8] Supra at 3.

[9] (2001) 1 SCC 51.

[10] SCM (CRL.) No.000001 -/2020.

[11] Supra at 1.

[12] Supra at 2.

[13] AIR 1970 SC 2015.

[14] (1936) 38 BOMLR 681.

[15] Supra at 10.

[16] Supra at 13.

[17] Supra at 1.

[18] Supra at 9.

[19] Supra at 2.

[20] 1978 SCR (2) 621.

Download