Criminal Contempt Of Court As An Offence
1. Definition
Criminal contempt of court refers to acts that scandalize the court, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice, or disobey or resist court orders. The purpose of criminal contempt law is to uphold the dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary and ensure the effective functioning of the legal system.
2. Types of Contempt
Criminal Contempt: Involves acts that interfere with the judicial process or disrespect the court, such as:
Scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court.
Interfering with court proceedings.
Disobedience of court orders.
Civil Contempt: Usually involves failure to comply with court orders during civil proceedings and is remedial in nature.
This explanation focuses on criminal contempt.
3. Key Elements of Criminal Contempt
The act must interfere with the administration of justice or prejudice judicial proceedings.
The act must be wilful and intentional.
The contemptuous act may be either by words, writing, or conduct.
The contempt must occur in or outside the court (depending on the law).
The offence is usually punishable by fine or imprisonment.
4. Purpose
To protect the dignity of the judiciary.
To ensure authority and effective administration of justice.
To prevent obstruction or delay in judicial proceedings.
Landmark Case Laws Explaining Criminal Contempt
1. R. v. Gray (1900), UK
Facts: The defendant published pamphlets criticising the judge and alleging bias during a pending trial.
Issue: Whether publication criticizing a judge during an ongoing case amounts to criminal contempt.
Held: The court held that scandalizing the court by lowering public confidence in the judiciary is a criminal contempt, especially when it interferes with ongoing judicial proceedings.
Significance: Established the principle that public criticism which undermines the authority or impartiality of the court is punishable as criminal contempt.
2. In Re Michael (1954), UK
Facts: A newspaper published an article alleging bias by a judge.
Issue: Whether the publication scandalized the court.
Held: The court ruled that scandalizing contempt protects the administration of justice by preventing attacks on the judiciary that may lower public confidence.
Significance: Reaffirmed that freedom of speech has limits when it threatens judicial authority and the administration of justice.
3. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1974), UK
Facts: The Times published articles criticizing the court's decision and conduct of judges.
Issue: Whether the publication constituted criminal contempt.
Held: The House of Lords emphasized the need to balance freedom of expression and contempt law. It held that criticism must be fair and responsible and not intentionally or recklessly undermine public confidence.
Significance: Introduced the “fair and responsible criticism” test, limiting criminal contempt in the context of media and free speech.
4. In Re R.V. Dhirajlal Thaker (1963), India
Facts: An advocate made derogatory remarks about the judiciary in public speeches.
Issue: Whether such remarks amounted to criminal contempt.
Held: The Supreme Court of India held that remarks that lower the dignity of the judiciary and obstruct justice are punishable as criminal contempt.
Significance: Indian courts recognize criminal contempt to maintain respect and authority of judiciary, ensuring no interference with judicial function.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003), India
Facts: The accused published material that criticized the judge’s impartiality and fairness during ongoing litigation.
Issue: Whether such publications amounted to criminal contempt.
Held: The Supreme Court held that such publications scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice and thus amount to criminal contempt.
Significance: Affirmed that publishing material that undermines public confidence during ongoing litigation is contempt.
6. R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) (1999), UK
Facts: A judgment was challenged on grounds of bias involving a judge.
Issue: Whether public statements questioning judicial impartiality amount to contempt.
Held: The court held that while judicial decisions can be criticized, imputations of bias without proof are contemptuous.
Significance: Highlighted the line between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and contemptuous attacks on judges' integrity.
7. Arundhati Roy Contempt Case (2002), India
Facts: The author Arundhati Roy made public statements alleging bias by the Supreme Court in a land acquisition case.
Issue: Whether these statements amounted to criminal contempt.
Held: The Supreme Court found her guilty of criminal contempt for scandalizing the court and fined her.
Significance: This case reiterated that public figures must not make unsubstantiated allegations that undermine judicial authority.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Held/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R. v. Gray (1900) | UK | Scandalizing court by pamphlets | Public criticism interfering with justice = contempt |
| In Re Michael (1954) | UK | Scandalizing court by newspaper article | Protects judiciary from loss of public confidence |
| AG v. Times Newspapers (1974) | UK | Criticism vs. contempt | Fair and responsible criticism allowed |
| In Re R.V. Dhirajlal Thaker (1963) | India | Public remarks against judiciary | Remarks lowering dignity = contempt |
| UP v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) | India | Publication during litigation | Scandalizing and interference with justice = contempt |
| R. v. Bow Street Magistrate (1999) | UK | Allegations of judicial bias | Unproven bias allegations = contempt |
| Arundhati Roy Case (2002) | India | Public allegations against Supreme Court | Unsubstantiated allegations = criminal contempt |
Conclusion
Criminal contempt of court is a serious offence designed to safeguard the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
It covers acts that scandalize the court, obstruct justice, or disobey court orders.
The courts have balanced this against freedom of speech by allowing fair, responsible criticism but punishing wilful, reckless attacks.
The cases above illustrate how courts across jurisdictions have applied these principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments