Debate contempt

It is difficult not to agree with the widespread criticism of Delhi High Court’s order sentencing four journalists found guilty of contempt of court. Questions can certainly be raised if the mere publication of articles alleging corruption against a judge can tarnish the image of the judiciary, as observed by the esteemed court.

In my view, the judiciary’s image would have been best served if the court had at least ordered a probe into the allegations, since the journalists stood by their stories, pleading that they had facts and documents to rely upon. Therefore, this case should have been viewed in light of the Contempt of Courts Amendment Act, 2006, that maintains that the justification by truth, if it is in the public interest, should be a valid defence in the proceedings for contempt of court.

This scenario calls for a debate: does contempt of court infringe upon our freedom of speech? It is strongly argued that the dichotomy between Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that provides for the freedom of speech and expression to all the citizens and Articles 129 and 215 that provide for the invoking of contempt of court should be resolved in a manner that the former prevails over the latter. This is argued by taking a cue from an enlightening speech by Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju earlier this year, where he raised some pertinent questions over the need to retain contempt of court as a judicial power. He rightly observed that it should be invoked only if an action causes extreme difficulty in the functioning of the courts and not to vindicate its majesty. Reinforcing public confidence by way of integrity, impartiality, learning and simplicity of the judges should be the best means of protecting the status and power of the courts.

... contd.