Context:
• Recent controversy over allegedly derogatory remarks against CJI & SC has revived debate on contempt.
• Issue: where does free criticism end and contempt begin?
Key Highlights:
- Constitutional Basis – Courts of Record
• Article 129 – SC is Court of Record → has power to punish for contempt.
• Article 215 – High Courts = Courts of Record with same power.
• Courts of Record → their records have evidentiary value & inherent contempt jurisdiction.
• “Contempt of Court” appears in Article 19(2) as a permissible restriction on free speech. - Classification – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Civil Contempt – Section 2(b)
• Wilful disobedience of Court’s orders / directions / undertakings.
Criminal Contempt – Section 2(c)
• Publication or act that:
– scandalises / lowers authority of Court
– interferes / tends to interfere with judicial proceedings
– obstructs / tends to obstruct the administration of justice
- Initiation of Proceedings
• SC / HC can act suo motu.
• Third party can move petition with AG / Advocate General consent. - Limits of Criticism
• Fair criticism ≠ contempt.
• But abusive, motivated delegitimisation = criminal contempt. - Key Case Law
• Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v Arabinda Bose (1952) → fair criticism of judgment is allowed.
• Anil Ratan Sarkar v Hirak Ghosh (2002) → punishment only when clear violation.
• M.V. Jayarajan v Kerala HC (2015) → abusive public speech upheld as criminal contempt.
• Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v Madras HC (2025) → contempt power → to ensure justice ecosystem integrity.
Relevant Prelims Points:
• Contempt = statutory + constitutional construct.
• SC/HC = Courts of Record (Articles 129 & 215).
• AG consent needed for private contempt motions.
• Criminal contempt includes “tendency to interfere” — preventive standard.
Relevant Mains Points:
• Contempt must balance Article 19 freedoms vs “authority of court” (GS2).
• India retains criminal contempt — unlike several common law democracies that have diluted it.
• Debate → need clearer statutory definition vs chilling effect concerns.
• Way Forward: Narrow standard, clearer categorisation of “scandalising”, graduated sanctions, reasoned transparency of contempt orders.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
• GS2 – Judiciary; Constitutional authority; Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions
• GS4 – Ethical public speech; institutional respect