The Court has an Opportunity to Lay Down the Limits of Contempt

Context: A final constitutional view on punishment and remedies for contempt of court may be useful at this juncture.

Legal Provisions to Contempt: 

• Article 129: It says that The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

• Article 215: says the same with regards to the High Courts.

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines the contempt in broadly two types:

• Civil: includes defiance of court orders or judgments or refusal to honour undertakings given in court. 

• Criminal: Includes -

• Publication (by words, signs or visible representation) that would “scandalize” or “tend to scandalize”, “lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court;
• Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding;
• Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner”.

Issues with the contempt:

• Ambiguous Interpretations: “tends to scandalize” can be interpreted in multiple ways by different courts and judges.
• The wording needs to be more precise and differentiating standards should be devised.

• Stifles free speech: The liberal view is that courts should not resort to the use of constitutional and legal provisions to stifle free speech.

• However, just as free speech provisions cannot be absolute, so too comments on the judiciary can- not be an open licence to malign it.
• Lack of Transparency: The public has no way of knowing the actual proceeding and evidence put forth in the contempt cases, which then is suppressed by the judiciary.

Conclusion: A final constitutional view on punishment and remedies for contempt of court may be useful at this juncture, not only because it involves the highest courts of the land, but also because Parliament and state legislatures have similar powers to act against contempt.