An independent judiciary and free press perform the vital functions of ensuring transparency and enforcing accountability of the wielders of public power. In any liberal democratic society these two are natural allies. Yet, paradoxically the two seem to act as inveterate adversaries because of certain grave misconceptions about contempt jurisdiction. It is a settled law that criticism of a court judgement, however pungent or vigorous, does not constitute contempt provided dishonesty or extraneous considerations are not attributed. In that case the writer will have to justify his allegations by cogent evidence, now permitted by the amended Contempt of Courts Act, or face the consequences.

Again it is a fallacy that no comments or opinions can be expressed on the issues involved in a pending case. The rationale of the sub-judice doctrine is that judges should be able to discharge their functions of deciding disputes in an environment free from pressure, without their acts or orders during the progress of the case at every stage being subjected to continuous comment and criticism. However, the law does not prohibit a generalised discussion of a particular topic without commenting on the factual issues, which are pending adjudication. For example, the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalises homosexuality, may be pending but that does not prohibit expression of divergent opinions on the subject. Again there may be a pending writ petition or a case in which the legality of euthanasia is involved. General public discussion of such issues cannot be prevented, provided there is no focused attempt to influence decision in a particular case. Any other interpretation would result in imposition of excessive and disproportionate restraint on freedom of speech and the freedom of the press and the right of the people to know and to be informed.

... contd.