Judicial Precedents On Contempt Of Court Offences
1) In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002)
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Arundhati Roy published an article criticizing the judiciary and Supreme Court’s role in a land acquisition case.
Issue: Whether publishing material that scandalizes the court amounts to criminal contempt.
Holding / Principle:
Court held that statements scandalizing the court or undermining its authority fall under criminal contempt (Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the judiciary’s authority.
Implication: Public criticism of judges or judicial decisions in media or online forums may constitute contempt if it tends to lower the authority of the court.
2) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – Judicial Independence and Contempt
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench
Facts: Contempt petitions filed against lawyers for making scathing remarks against judges and judiciary in public discourse.
Holding / Principle:
Emphasized that judges must be protected from attacks that threaten public confidence in judiciary.
Reinforced that contempt is not to punish dissent but to protect judicial authority.
Implication: Even online or social media commentary against judicial officers can attract contempt charges if it undermines confidence in the judiciary.
3) K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1990)
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Letters to newspapers criticizing judicial delays and verdicts.
Holding / Principle:
Criticism of judicial processes is allowed, but scandalizing judges personally may constitute contempt.
Distinguished between fair criticism and statements intended to scandalize or intimidate judges.
Implication: Online blogs or posts criticizing judgments are generally allowed, but targeting judges personally crosses the line into contempt.
4) In Re: P.N. Duda (1960)
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Comments made by a lawyer in open court questioning a judge’s impartiality.
Holding / Principle:
Court held that disobedience or disrespect in court proceedings amounts to contempt.
Established the principle of maintaining court decorum.
Implication: Statements made in court, including during cyber hearings or virtual court sessions, must respect judicial authority; disrespect can attract contempt.
5) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Contempt vs. Public Interest Reporting
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Media published personal information about a politician’s family, with government objections.
Holding / Principle:
Held that contempt proceedings cannot be used to suppress legitimate public interest reporting, but malicious intent or scandalizing the judiciary is punishable.
Implication: Distinguishes between legitimate criticism or reporting and statements aimed at tarnishing judiciary’s image.
6) In Re: R. Venkataramani (2003)
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Advocate made public statements on media questioning judicial independence.
Holding / Principle:
Court clarified that contempt jurisdiction protects judiciary, not individual sensitivity.
The key test is whether the statement tends to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
Implication: Ensures that while freedom of speech exists, public remarks about judiciary that erode confidence in courts may attract contempt action.
7) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Contempt for Non-compliance with Court Orders
Court / Bench: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Cases where officers did not comply with Supreme Court directions on arrest procedures.
Holding / Principle:
Non-compliance with court orders can attract civil or criminal contempt, depending on willfulness and obstruction.
Court emphasized enforcement of directives to uphold rule of law.
Implication: Ignoring or disobeying court orders, including digital summons, e-filing directives, or online court orders, can amount to contempt.
🔹 Key Principles from Judicial Precedents
| Principle | Case Reference | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Scandalizing court = criminal contempt | Arundhati Roy (2002) | Media, blogs, social posts must not lower judiciary’s authority |
| Fair criticism allowed, personal attacks not | K.K. Verma (1990) | Critique of decisions is fine; targeting judges is contempt |
| Maintaining decorum in court | P.N. Duda (1960) | Applies to physical and virtual hearings |
| Protecting judicial independence | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993) | Lawyers/public cannot undermine confidence in courts |
| Non-compliance with orders = contempt | Arnesh Kumar (2014) | Failure to obey directives, including cyber orders, is punishable |
| Distinguish public interest vs malice | R. Rajagopal (1994) | Legitimate reporting not contempt; malicious intent is |
🔹 Observations
Two types of contempt recognized:
Civil/Disobedience contempt: disobeying court orders.
Criminal contempt: scandalizing court or obstructing administration of justice.
Online conduct is included: Social media, blogs, and digital publications are now covered under the same principles.
Freedom of speech is limited: Reasonable restrictions protect the authority, dignity, and public confidence in the judiciary.
Willful disobedience or malicious intent is key: Mere criticism or reporting does not constitute contempt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments