Fair and unfair: On actor Suriya and contempt (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2: Governance 
Prelims level: Contempt of court 
Mains level: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability

Context:

• It is a matter of relief that the Madras High Court has decided not to pursuethe ill-conceived attempt to initiate action against film actor Suriya for contempt of court.

Unwarranted petition:

• In a detailed order, the Court has rightly noted that “it is not the job of a constitutional court to use a sledgehammerfor issues that do not deserve contempt.
• In the course of a statement against the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for medical admissions in the country, the actor had indirectly questioned the proprietyof the Supreme Court.
• SC allowed NEET to be held across the country during the pandemic when the Court itself was holding virtual hearings out of fear of infection.
• A judge of the High Court had sought to construethe remark as an adversecomment on the judiciary in general and one questioning the devotion and integrity of judges.
• The observation might have been unwarranted, but it was quite clear from the beginning that it constituted no contempt.
• It did nothing more than raise the question whether Courts that went virtual in the interest of the safety of judges, lawyers, staff and litigants, could afford to risk the health of thousands of students.
• Fortunately, the Advocate-General, Vijay Narayan, whose opinion was sought by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, declined consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
• Agreeing with his opinion, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice, decided not to pursue the matter further.

Restraint:

• However, the Court’s 29-page order is not an unmixed blessing.
• It lays much emphasis on the idea that criticism about the judiciary should be restrained, lest the line of fair comment be crossed.
• There is a lengthy section on the need for prudenceand restraint on exuberance, but such observations would be relevant and apposite only if made in the context of a stridentattack on the judiciary.
• Did the actor’s statement contain such unbridledcriticism?
• There is no effort to parsethe offending sentence to see if there was any adverse comment on judges in general, or any aspersionscast on the system of virtual courts.
• If only the Court had seen it as a comment limited to orders of the Supreme Court, it could have dropped the issue for lack of jurisdiction, as laid down by the apex court in Vitusah Oberoi (2017).
• In fact, the order itself notes that no court in Tamil Nadu has dealt with the NEET issue.
• While the advice for restraint is, without doubt, reasonable and well-articulated, its elaborate delineationshould not open up the possibility of more such demands for contempt action in the name of deterringunfair criticism.
• As long as there is no effort to obstruct the course of justice, criticism, whether fair or unfair, does not warrant initiation of contempt proceedings.

Conclusion:

• Madras High Court’s advice on restraint in criticism should not allow for frivolousefforts to invokecontempt.

  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 the Modern Slavery, consider the following statements:

1. According to a report by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and an international anti-slavery organisation ‘Walk Free’ Commonwealth countries accounting for about 40% of people living in conditions of modern slavery in the world.
2. India, like all other Commonwealth countries in Asia, had not ratified the International Labour Organisation’s 2011 Domestic Workers Convention or the 2014 Forced Labour Protocol. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.   1 only
B.   2 only
C.   Both 1 and 2
D.   None 

Answer: C