Written By: Priya Darshini.
Edited By: Naimisa Madduri.
- INTRODUCTION:
Contempt of Court is a much talked about and discussed topic in recent times. This concept gained a lot of popularity amongst the Indian citizens after the case in which the leading advocate, Prashant Bhushan was charged with contempt of court for posting character damaging tweets about the former Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde. The real meaning of the term Contempt of Court is the act of showing disrespect or causing harm to the dignity of the court[1]. Civil contempt and Criminal Contempt are the two kinds of contempt that define disobedience of the court with such an intention by an individual and causing harm to dignity through any act or publishing respectively by the same. In simple terms, any kind of activity or publication which reduces the trust of the citizens in the Indian Judiciary is termed as ‘contempt of court’. Not all activities questioning the court are classified as contempt. There are certain exceptions and defenses mentioned in the Act which can be used by the defendant.
- VARIOUS DEFENCES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT:
As mentioned in the first paragraph, not all activities and publishing which are not in compliance with the court are branded as contempt. There are some defenses that can be utilized as mentioned in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. If the order which is disobeyed, is itself vague and not clearly stated by the court itself, then such contempt is not contempt and is exempted[2]. An exception is also granted when the defendant is not aware of the particular order passed by the court. So, when contempt is made by a person who is not acquainted with the law, it is not considered to be a contempt. Also, to constitute a contempt, the breach should be willful. If the disobedience is not willful and was done without awareness, it does not constitute a contempt. One such defense is mentioned in Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
- SECTION 4 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT:
Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act provides a defense that can be justified by a person who has been convicted for contempt of court. It states that a person shall not be charged for contempt of court if he produces any report from a judicial process. The report stated should be fair in nature and the person shall not be held guilty for the mere pointing out of the facts mentioned in a judicial proceeding or in any authorized stage.
- VARIOUS CASES MENTIONING SECTION 4 OF COC, 1971:
4.1 MANU SHARMA vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [3], 2010
BENCH: JUSTICE P SATHASIVAM AND JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR
JUDGEMENT DATE: 19th APRIL, 2010
This case, which is also called the Jessica Lal murder case, revolves around the cold-blooded murder of Ms. Jessica Lal by the defendant Manu Sharma. Manu Sharma had shot Jessica in her left eye which resulted in the latter’s death for the sole reason of denying him a drink on the night of 29th April 1999. When the case was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Manu Sharma, being the son of a prominent politician, tried to use his influence, to get himself acquitted. Since the entire case was on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the court was on the verge of delivering an immature decision. It was only due to the intervention of media by way of publication of the entire case’s proceedings, that the citizens were alerted and the court was compelled to look into the matter with utmost scrutiny. If not for the publishing by the media, it is doubtful that justice would’ve been served. This intervention of the media by going against the court was not considered to be contempt and was granted relief under Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, which grants permission to publish any judicial proceedings.[4]
4.2 KHUSHBOO S vs. KANNIAMMAL & ANR, 2010[5]
BENCH: JUSTICES CHAUHAN BS, KG BALAKRISHNAN, AND DEEPAK VERMA
JUDGEMENT DATE: 28th APRIL, 2010
This case revolves around the criminal cases filed on S Khushboo, a prominent South Indian actress, by Kanniammal. A total of 23 suits were filed against her for remarking on pre-marital sexual relationships to a leading newspaper publisher. Ms, Khushboo had approached the High Court of Madras, requesting to remove all the charges which were levied on her. Since the High Court did not grant her wish, she took the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, after studying the case in detail, ordered all the charges to be removed effective immediately. It stated that the citizens have the right to freedom and to freely express their own views. It was in this case, the Supreme Court also granted directions regarding the need for responsibility in reporting the court cases[6]. It gave freedom for the people to publish the court’s proceedings in a fair and just manner, and guaranteed that it will be covered under Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.[7]
- CONCLUSION:
The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 is considered to be one of the most quintessential parts of the Indian Constitution. It deals with the upholding of the integrity of the courts and the dignity of the law-enforcing judges. It is necessary to have a legal punishment for those who compromise the integrity of the courts and make the citizens question the uprightness of the Judicial System. But at the same time, it needs to be ensured that the basic Fundamental Rights, like the Right to freedom of Speech and Expression of views of an individual, are not compromised in the due process of upholding the integrity of the law enforcing bodies. We can conclude that the Contempt of Court Act if put to use properly and in a just manner, will definitely lead to a highly mannered and maintained society, which is an integral part of the development of the Nation.
[1] PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH, https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/review-contempt-courts-act-1971 (11/10/2021).
[2] Ashutosh Singh, What are the defences allowed in Contempt Proceedings?, LAW CORNER (11/10/2021, 21:33) https://lawcorner.in/what-are-the-defences-allowed-in-contempt-proceedings/.
[3] Manu Sharma Vs. State of NCT, 2010 6 SCC 1.
[4] Priyanshi Bhardwaj, Jessica Lal Murder Case, LAWSCHOLE (11/10/2021, 22:32) https://www.lawschole.com/post/jessica-lal-murder-case-sidhartha-vashisht-a-manu-sharma-v-state-nct-of-delhi.
[5] S Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr, 2010 5 SCC 600.
[6] EBC’S CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, https://www-ebcreader-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/library.php (11/10/2021).
[7] Paramjeet Singh, S Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & anr., LAW TIMES JOURNAL (11/10/2021, 23:28) https://lawtimesjournal.in/s-khushboo-vs-kanniammal-anr/.