Wah justice!

It is time to redefine the law of contempt

THE tendency of the courts to invoke the law of contempt at the slightest provocation is disturbing. The Delhi High Court has stretched the law to the extreme when it summarily ordered confiscation of all the unsold copies of the latest issue of the fortnightly newsmagazine Wah India, put a ban on its circulation and directed the media not to publish anything that would ‘‘lower the authority, dignity and prestige of the members of the judiciary’’. The court is incensed over a report the magazine carried about judges based on a survey it did among some lawyers. Whether the method the journal employed to ‘rate’ individual judges of the court is questionable or not, questions will be asked whether it amounted to contempt of court. In this case, the court has resorted to the extreme action on the ground that it had been scandalised by the report. While scandalisation of the court is ground for action under the law of contempt, it is easily forgotten that the law traces its origin to a piece of legislation of 18th century vintage, which is considered archaic even in the country of its origin — Britain. It is significant that neither in Britain nor in the US have courts shown such proclivity to invoke the law of contempt to protect themselves.

The purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the judiciary from attacks which would prevent it from discharging its responsibilities without fear or favour. Nobody in his or her senses would like to ridicule the judiciary so long as it is upright and above temptations. The need to protect the image of the judiciary is felt by all sane sections of the people because for them it is often the last door to be knocked. Small wonder that the people are generally wary of criticising the courts for fear of causing contempt and receiving summary punishment. But how far this has protected the long-term interests of the judiciary is difficult to answer. For instance, the black sheep among the judges get undue protection from the prying eyes of the Press and this does not serve the purpose of an honest, impartial judiciary. Information is vital for reformation and reports which expose the corrupt deeds of the members of the judiciary need, therefore, to be welcomed, and not condemned. The judges of the Supreme Court should take the initiative to deprecate the tendency to invoke the contempt of court law except in the rarest of rare cases.

No doubt, the need to protect the image of the judiciary is inviolable but that does not mean that the freedom of the Press is any the less important. Small wonder that the members of the Constituent Assembly hailed the guarantee of free speech as ‘the most important’, the ‘charter of liberties’, the ‘crux of fundamental rights’ and in similar eulogistic terms. They endorsed the thinking of Jawaharlal Nehru who said, ‘‘I would rather have a completely free Press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed and regulated Press’’. Alas, the Delhi High Court’s order banning publication of any comment on the Wah India case, which in the court’s view is ‘contemptuous’, does not square with this sentiment and is, therefore, retrograde.