HISTORICAL VIEWS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA
CJI giving reasons for Contempt of Court
The legislation against contempt of court in India is stricter than in other countries, according to a foreign observer. This is supported by cases resolved on this issue by the High Courts of India and Pakistan, where the courts were more concerned with protecting the judges' dignity than with considering the subject in terms of freedom of expression.
Chief Justice Sikri defended this in a lecture by arguing that India's situation was unique, meaning that the Indian people's status-oriented attitude needed that the courts be given greater protection.
Hypocritical Stance of judiciary over Contempt of Court
In other cases, the court was willing to take criticism and remark in the early 1950s. In Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, Mukherjea, J. said:“We would like to observe that it is not the practice of this Court to issue such rules except in very grave and serious cases and it is never over-sensitive to public criticism.”60a
But, at the same time, the court was swift to punish any attempt to undermine the judges' authority. Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, for example, the judges believed it was contemptuous to say that politics and religion have no place in the courts of law.
Views of founding fathers on Contempt of Court
Initially, the founding fathers did not consider contempt of court. Contempt of court was not addressed in the interim report on fundamental rights in 1947, nor was it mentioned in the discussion on the interim report. Again, neither the February 1948 Draft Constitution nor the debate over it mentioned contempt of court as a constraint on freedom of speech and expression.
On October 17, 1949, just weeks before the Constitution was enacted, T.T. Krishnamachari recommended "contempt of court" as a possible restriction on freedom of speech. Krishnamachari contended that "contempt of court" was included to fill a gap because it was related to "libels, slander, defamation, or any matter which offends against decency or morals or undermines or seeks to overturn the State"20, which were previously prohibited. It was a critical protection in the opinion of the judges. 21T.D. Bhargava was inclined to support the amendment if the legislation relating to the restriction of fundamental rights was defined as "reasonable law" rather than "simply any law."
“Contempt of court” was viewed as a legal extension of British imperialism. The President responded with a sharp censure, saying that while "individual Judges....may have erred," "we should not cast aspersions on the judiciary as a whole." 35 This literally indicated that no discussion of the court system's flaws as a whole was authorised. The phrases "contempt of court" were eventually accepted as a limitation on "freedom of speech."
CONCLUSION
Anything that inhibits or obstructs the judicial process's ability to operate freely. Any behaviour that tries to disdain or disrespect the law's power and administration, or that interferes with or biases parties or witnesses during a legal proceeding. The use of spoken or written words to obstruct or threaten the enforcement of the law. Using words that are likely to bring the course of justice into discredit, prejudice a fair trial of any cause or issue that is the basis of a criminal or civil process, or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.
If the accused makes the apology in good faith, it will not be rejected just because it is qualified or conditional.
Section 12 deals with the penalty of contempt of court. The following is spelled out in the document: (1) Article 12 Unless otherwise stipulated in this Act or other legislation, contempt of court may well be penalized by ordinary prison for up to 6 months or a fine of at least to two thousand rupee, or both.
Provided, however, that the accused (of contempt) may be released or the punishment imposed reduced if an apology is made to the satisfaction of the court.
Contempt is defined as an act or omission that obstructs or threatens to obstruct the course of justice. To instil disdain, it is not necessary for real intervention in the rule of law. It may be considered contempt if the act complained of hinders or attempts to hinder the administration of justice. The term "administration of justice" has a wide range of meanings. It encompasses all of the judge's tasks, including administrative, adjudicatory, and any other duty essential for the administration of justice, and is not confined to the judge's judicial role.