CASE LAWS

One of the earliest judgements in contempt of court history is in the case of E.M. Sankaran Naambodripad vs T Narayanan Nambiar of 1970 in which the judge relied upon the statement that “Criticism of a Judge functioning as a judge even in purely administrative or non-adjudicatory matters amount to criminal contempt”

Comparing this earlier judgement to one of the most famous and latest landmark judgements in contempt of court law is of the SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF 2020 IN PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER, in which Prashant Bhushan was charged with criminal contempt and a monetary fine of one rupee. What briefly happened in the case was A complaint was filed by the Mahek Maheshwari and the Supreme Court took Suo motu cognizance of the tweets posted by activist and advocate Prashant Bhushan on his twitter handle and held him guilty of contempt of court for lowering the authority of the court, through his tweets. The tweets contained material such as was “CJI rides a 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice!”. Thus, the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices Arun Mishra, B. R Gavai and Krishna Murari, issued notice to the Contemnors to file their reply on 5th August, 2020 and also issued notice to the Attorney General to assist the court. Now I let this up to the reader to decide if the tweets made by Mr. Bhushan were truly derogatory to the court of law and if it really undermined the authority of the judiciary or was it a mere criticism. But what we learned from this case was “Law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.”, as beautifully said former Madras High Court Judge C.S Karnan.

The contempt law is a very unique and brutal law as it is a system in which the injured party is both the prosecutor and the judge, and as a judge its power to commit the accused is highly unlimited and arbitrary. It is noteworthy that even the beneficiaries (the judges) of the system have been able to defend it as being in harmony or in conformity with well established juridical principles; whoever has opened their lips in favor if its continued existence has been impelled to do so on the grounds of expediency. The major problem with this law is not its existence as there needs to be a law to uphold the dignity of the prestigious institution of judiciary, but rather the fact that it does not give the convict to prove their innocence, and the judge has the absolute authority which cannot be challenged which makes it somewhat non democratic, There have been way too many instances in the recent past where this act has been used injudiciously and the act itself has faced criticism by many journalists and activists, for example-On 18 December 2020, the Supreme Court decided to proceed with the criminal contempt of court cases against stand-up comedian Kumal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja, and issued notices to both.

The contempt proceedings against Kamra and Taneja are based on their tweets about the apex court and its judges, including after the Supreme Court granted interim bail to journalist Arnab Goswami. The Supreme Court’s notices come after consent by Attorney General K K Venugopal to initiate contempt action. Under Section 15  of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the AGI or Solicitor General. In practice, if the petitioners who seek to initiate contempt of court proceedings against individuals secure the AGI’s or SG’s consent, then they are deemed to have fulfilled the requirement under Section 15. Although the AG’s consent or lack of consent does not bind the bench, the Ashok Bhushan bench appears to have issued notices to the two out of deference to the AGI.

​