Answer:

Administration of justice requires strong safeguards for the judiciary. Thus:

♤ Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empower the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their contempt.

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 delineate contempt powers of judiciary to:

♤ Prevent scandalisation or lowering the authority of any court.

♤ Prevent interference with the due course of any judicial proceedings.

♤ Strengthen court’s image as legal authority and that no one is above the law.

♤ Ensure one could not defy court orders according to one’s own free will.

In the context freedom of speech and expression, a right underpinned by article 19 1(a), contempt of court is considered a reasonable restriction under Article 19 (2), which empowers contempt laws.

Critics observe that:

♤ Judiciary has routinely invoked its contempt powers to punish expressions of dissent on grounds of such speech undermining or scandalising the judiciary’s authority.

♤ Acts of speech and expression that do not necessarily impede with the actual administration of justice have been punished invoking the idea of reputation of judiciary in the eyes of the public.

Rights under article 19 (1) (a) are important as they:

♤ Empower citizens to express their opinion which is necessary for good public policies.

♤ Are important in themselves for ensuring a good life, also enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution.

Thus, it becomes imperative to reconcile the freedom of speech and the contempt power of the courts. It can be ensured by taking the following into consideration:

♤ Judiciary itself underlined guidelines that envisage economic use of the jurisdiction on the one hand and harmonization between free criticism and the judiciary, e.g. Mulgaonkar case 1978. Also, of note are observations in cases such as Ram Dayal Markarha v. state of Madhya Pradesh 1978; Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus 1987; P.N. Duda b. P. Shiv Shankar 1988; Sanjay Narayan, Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad 2011.

♤ The 2006 amendment in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that “court may permit, in any proceedings for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bonafide”.

International standards and laws of other democracies would be informative and enable us to arrive at the right standards. e.g. in European democracies such as Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Italy, there is no power to commit for contempt for scandalising the court. In the U.K., the offence of scandalising the court has become obsolete. In the United States, contempt power is used against the press and publication only if there is a clear imminent and present danger to the disposal of a pending case.

.