Criminal Contempt of Court

 

Context:  Attorney General of India has given consent to initiate contempt proceedings against comic artist for her tweets on Supreme Court.

 

Background:   Earlier the Attorney General had given his consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against standup comedian Kunal Kamra for his tweets insinuating the Supreme Court after it gave bail to the Editor in chief of Republic tv, in an abetment to suicide case.

 

 Concept of Contempt of Court

 It is several centuries old. In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name. Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.

 With passing of time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

 

 Statutory basis for contempt of court

 

In the pre-Independence time, laws were exist of contempt in India. Not only the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws. When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

 Although, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

 

Types of Contempt of Court

It is of two kinds, civil contempt and criminal contempt. The civil contempt is committed when someone willfully disobeys a court order, or willfully breaches an undertaking given to court.

 

While, Criminal contempt is more complex. It consists of three forms, that are

 

·         Words, written or spoken, signs and actions that scandalize or tends to lower the authority of any court.

 

·         Prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding.

 

·         Interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.

 

Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attribute motives to judgments and judicial functioning and any rude attack on the conduct of judges are normally considered matters that scandalize the judiciary.

 The rationale behind this provision is that, courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.

 

 Consent of Attorney General and Solicitor General

In the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and in the case of High Courts, the Advocate General, may bring in a motion before the court for initiating a case of criminal contempt.

 

However, if the motion is brought by any other person, the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Advocate General is required, similar procedure exist in the High courts. The motion or reference made for initiating the case will have to specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

 

 Procedure of Contempt

 

The procedure in the cases of criminal contempt of court, which means the publication of material that lowers the dignity of the court or prejudices or interferes with the proceedings of the court, the consent of the Attorney General is required under the law.

The objective behind requiring the consent of the Attorney General (AG) before taking cognizance of a complaint is to save the time of the court.

 If frivolous petitions directly hear by the courts, then, it results lot of precious time of the courts would waste. Hence, at primary stage consent of the Attorney General is necessary to safeguard against frivolous petitions, as it is deemed that the AG, as an officer of the court, will independently ascertain whether the complaint is indeed valid.

The consent of AG is mandatory when a private citizen wants to initiate a case of contempt of court against a person. Before such a plea can be filed, the Attorney General must sign off on the complaint, determining if it requires the attention of the court at all.

Although, when the court itself initiates a contempt of court case, as in the case of Prashant Bhushan recently, the AG’s consent is not required. Here, the court is exercising its inherent powers under the Constitution to punish for contempt.

The complainant can, even, separately bring the issue to the notice of the court and urge the court to take suo motu cognizance. If the court does take suo motu cognizance, then the consent of the senior-most law officer is not required.

Article 129 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate contempt cases on its own, independent of the motion brought before it by the AG or with the consent of the AG.

Under Article 129 of the constitution of India, 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.

 

Conclusion

Over many years, truth was rarely considered a defence against a charge of contempt. There was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual members in the name of protecting the image of the institution. The Act was amended in 2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence, if it was in public interest and was invoked in a bona fide manner.  Hence, fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court.