THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 18 August 2020 (What is criticism and what is contempt? (The Hindu))

What is criticism and what is contempt?(The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2:Polity 
Prelims level: Contempt of Court
Mains level: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability

Context:

• A recent order of the Supreme Court found senior advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for two tweets.

Criminal contempt:

• For the purpose of the topic at hand we are concerned only with criminal contempt and not those wilfully disobedient litigants who ignore the orders of the courts. 
• Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt. 
• It defines as the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which lowers the authority of any court; or prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or obstructs the administration of justice.
• Does this mean that one can never voice any criticism of the judiciary? No. 
• What the law permits you to say regarding the functioning of Indian courts forms the basis of this particular article, i.e., there is a thin line separating criticism and contempt.
• Freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed to every Indian citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, albeitsubject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). 
• In C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971), the Supreme Court held that the existing law of criminal contempt is one such reasonable restriction. 
• That does not mean that one cannot express one’s ireagainst the judiciary for fear of contempt.

Fair critique of a judgement:

• As long back as in 1968, Lord Denning M.R. set out guidelines in matters of contempt of court. He stated that contempt is not the means to uphold the court’s dignity. 
• What does the Indian judiciary deem permissible and impermissible? 
• The Supreme Court has held that if a comment is made against the functioning of a judge, it would have to be seen whether the comment is fair or malicious. 
• If the comment is made against the judge as an individual, the Court would consider whether the comment seeks to interfere with the judge’s administration or is simply in the nature of libel or defamation. 
• The Court would have to determine whether the statement is fair, bona fide, defamatory or contemptuous. 
• A statement would not constitute criminal contempt if it is only against the judge in his or her individual capacity and not in discharge of his or her judicial function. 
• Criminal contempt does not seek to afford protection to judges from statements which they may be exposed to as individuals. Such statements would only leave the individual liable for defamation. 
• Statements which affect the administration of justice or functioning of courts amount to criminal contempt since public perception of the judiciary plays a vital role in the rule of law. 
• An attack on a judge in his or her official capacity denigratesthe judiciary as a whole and the law of criminal contempt would come down upon such a person unless it is a fair critique of a judgment.

Various example:

• Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act are akinto a defense a person may take in a case of defamation i.e., fair comment. 
• In Re: S.Mugolkar v. Unknown (1978), the Supreme Court held that the judiciary cannot be immunefrom fair criticism, and contempt action is to be used only when an obvious misstatement with malicious intent seeks to bring down public confidence in the courts or seeks to influence the courts. 
• In this judgment, Chief Justice M.H. Beg opined that at times the judiciary adopts a “magnanimously charitable attitude even when utterly uncharitable and unfair criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide concern for improvement.” 
• The same Justice Beg remarked post-retirement that Justice H.R. Khanna’s famous dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) made no contribution to law but only to his popularity. 
• The Allahabad High Court citing Brahma Prakash Sharma (1953) did not find Justice Beg guilty of contempt.
• Speaking for the Supreme Court in 1988, Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee found that these statements did not impairthe administration of justice. 
• He only opined that the language could have been milder given the Minister’s own legal background. 
• He also said: “If antisocial elements and criminals have benefited by decisions of the Supreme Court, the fault rests with the laws and the loopholes in the legislation. The Courts are not deterred by such criticisms.”

Conclusion:

• The above cases would show that whether a comment would constitute criminal contempt or not depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• In conclusion, tweets or remarks by conscientious citizens certainly do not affect the dignity of the Indian judiciary.

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

E-Books Download for UPSC IAS Exams

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Material

Prelims Questions:

Q.1)With reference to marketing of petrol and diesel, consider the following statements:
1. The Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas has simplified the guidelines for grant of authorization for bulk and retail marketing of Motor Spirit (Petrol) and High Speed Diesel (Diesel). 
2. The simplified guidelines aim at increasing private sector participation in the marketing of Motor Spirit (Petrol) and High Speed Diesel (Diesel). 
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: C

Mains Questions:
Q.1) What are the types of contempt of court?