CONTEMPT OF COURT
Author: Yash Vardhan
Introduction
This article deals with the law of contempt and why the thought of “contempt of court” is criticized. It conjointly deals with the moral conduct of an advocate towards the court and may the subjective determination on what constitutes contempt of court be treated as a violation of ethics within the bar. The article more discusses the choice of the Supreme Court on adv. Prashant Bhushan’s tweets were allegedly “Scandalising the authority of the court” and views of legal specialists on that.
What is contempt of court?
Article 129 declares that the Supreme Court could be a “Court of record” in which it shall have all the facilities of a court of record together with the power to penalize for its contempt of itself.
Further Article 142(2) empowers the Supreme Court topenalize for any contempt of itself i.e., contempt of the Supreme Court of itself.
Similarly, Article 215 declares High courts as a “Court of record” which shall have all the powers of such a court together with the powers to penalize for contempt for itself.
Power to penalize for contempt of each the Supreme Court and also the Supreme Court has been given by the Constitution additionally as by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Importance of contempt of court
Contempt in law means that being disobedient to a court of law or towards its ruling. The popularity of contempt of court and to penalize for contempt is crucial for a nation like an Asian country that relies on the thought of rule of law which needs dominance of law.
Kinds of contempt of court
Contempt of court [Section 2(b)]
According to section 2(b)[1], contempt of court means that wilful disobedience of any judgment or a decree of a court or a wilful breach of any enterprise given to a court.
The definition of contempt of court is straightforward enough for an affordable man with standard prudence to conclude on what action can represent contempt of court.
Determination of contempt of court is objective and isn't supported by the subjective understanding of anyone. If there's a judicial order and such order has been wilfully disobeyed then that truth of disobedience can represent contempt of court.
Contempt of court [Section 2(c)]
Section 2(c)[2] defined contempt of court because the publication of any matter that either scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court, or that such matter interferes or prejudices any proceeding, Interferes, or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner. Further, an act or publication can represent contempt if it even tends to churn up the authority of the court or it tends to interfere with any proceeding or administration of justice. continuing for contempt of court has been initiated against voters even for criticizing the Judges of the Supreme court and high courts.
Punishment for contempt of court
Article 129 and Article 215 empower the Supreme court and also the High courts to penalize its contempt.
Accordingly, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for a penalty for contempt of court. It incorporates the sort and extent of penalty that the courts will provide for contempt.
According to section 12, contempt is also fined either by easy imprisonment of 6 months or a fine of Rs. 2000 or each. The more section makes it clear that the penalty for contempt cannot exceed the 6-month imprisonment and fine of Rs 2000 the utmost penalty that the courts can provide for contempt.
The Prashant Bhushan case
In Prashant Bhushan[3], the Supreme Court commands Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of Contempt. It commands the two tweets by the Senior Advocate to be in Contempt of court as a result of it scandalized the authority of the court. The court relied on the judgment given in Brahma Prakash Sharma et al vs. The State Of state (1953)[4] in that it dominated that scandalizing the court is once there's an attack on a private choice or the court as an entire with or while not relevant explicit cases, casting unwarranted and denigrative aspersions on the character of the judges.
In step with the court, the primary part of the Tweet expressed that, at a time once he (Chief Justice) keeps the Supreme Court in imprisonment mode, denying voters the basic Rights to access to justice.
Court command this to be insulting as a result of in step with the Court the tweet criticized the magistrate of in his capability because the magistrate of India and not as a private. The court dominated that the tweet cared-for shake the boldness of the general public within the Judiciary and this in step with the Court undermines the dignity and authority of the administration of Justice.
It was more aforementioned that an attack on the Supreme Court not solely reduces the boldness of a standard litigator however conjointly of alternative judges within the country in its highest Court.
The Court for his second tweet court aforementioned that the tweet provides the impression that the Supreme Court has contended a specific role within the destruction of democracy within the last vi years and this in step with the Court is that the criticism of the Judiciary as an establishment and shakes the religion of the folks within the Judiciary.
Conclusion
Civil contempt is critical as wilful disobedient litigants who ignore the orders of the court cannot relieve otherwise it'd seriously have an effect on the administration of justice and trust of individuals within the judiciary. Trust, faith, and confidence of the voters within the judiciary is the sin qua non for the existence of the Rule of Law. However, contempt of court in step with specialists ought to be rationalized if not fully far away from the statute. .
References:
[1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1737746/ [2]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1737746/ [3]https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/14323/14323_2020_33_1504_23746_Judgement_31-Aug-2020.pdf [4]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1272890/