| Issue 20 Vol I, July 31, 2006 | Archive |
|
|
|
 |
|
Contempt of Court and Issues of Public
Importance
The law of contempt tends to punish a person who scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. Amrit Bazar Patrika in an article written in the early thirties commented about the British Judiciary "It is so unfortunate and regrettable that at the present day the Chief Justice and the Judges find a peculiar delight in hob nobing with the executive with the result that judiciary is robbed of its independence...” The Editor, Printer and Publisher were found guilty of contempt. The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court observed in 1935. "In this court there are at all times cases being tried or waiting to be tried in which the crown through some branch of executive is interested either as a prosecutor or a litigant and the inference is that in these cases the Judges cannot do even handed justice." The court further observed "No greater mischief than that can be possible." Comments on Judges, courts or the judiciary as a whole, amount to scandalizing the court irrespective of the truth involved in some cases, which besides the recent proposed amendment cannot be a defence except with the permission of the court. Scandalizing courts, or Judges or the Judiciary, and obstructing due course of justice are only thin line apart. Process of thought, thwarted by judicial implications of contempt of the court in a matter, involving questions of public interest and import as interference in due course of justice in a sub judice matter can be really harmful. Arun Dhati Roy, noted English writer, in reply to a contempt notice issued by the Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating "that the court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice on an absurd despicable, entirely unsubstantiated petition." Further stating "the notice was intended to silence criticism and muzzle dissent." The Supreme Court observed that it was not a fair criticism and that after more than half a century of independence the judiciary is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without..... The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armory of judicial repository which when needed can reach any neck however high or far away it may be..." She was sentenced to symbolic imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-. The other category of contempt cases is interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. Comments on proceedings pending in courts awaiting justice; termed as sub judice are some times taken as prejudicing the mind of the Court. "All debates and expression of opinion on a question which is subject matter of the dispute before a court should be hushed as long as the court is seized of the controversy" said Allahabad High Court in Ram Dulari Sarans case, qualifying the statement "where however, the nature of the controversy itself has a broad sweep, affecting a very large section of people and the controversy itself has a large amplitude, affecting a very large section of Society or the country as a whole and it is not confined to contesting parties only, then in such a case the court would take notice of only such comments which pointedly refer to the proceedings before it and which may be construed to interfere in the judicial process." A big list of cases involving matters of public importance is pending in various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, awaiting justice for years together, and in which cases the controversy involved requires public debate, research or discussion in seminars by experts. Should this all be hushed because a case seriously or non-seriously filed or pursued, is awaiting justice. The term awaiting justice having acquired controversial dimensions, with huge pendency backlog. An in-court case, admitted but not listed for hearing, not knowing when and which Judge would hear cannot be said to have the tendency of being prejudiced by any debate, opinion, research or expression. In court cases are to be differentiated from sub-judice cases. Even in sub-judice cases thought process can not be thwarted. All doctrines are the out come of a thought process. Debates discussions and expression of opinion should continue. Nor the law of contempt for bids it. It is a hype created by general impression that any thing said would tantamount to interference in pending judicial proceedings. In English law also, from which the Indian contempt law has stemmed, in Attorney General Vs Times News Paper it was observed. "General Public interest in not to be stiffled merely because there is litigation pending..... The discussion of public affairs and denunciation of public abuse cannot be required to be suspended merely because the discussion or denunciation may as an incidental but not intended by-product cause some likelihood of prejudice to a person who happens at a time to be a litigant". Lord Diplock further observed "the administration of the law is not the problem of the Judge or prosecuting attorney alone, but necessitates the active co-operation of an enlightened public. Discussion serves as a corrective force." An article in 1890 by two jurists D Warren and Louis D.Brandeis paved the way for legislation protecting privacy rights in the U.S. it has been quoted in thousands of cases. Essays and treatises are quoted in judicial discussions throughout world. Their coming into being, if prevented by contempt of court implications can only be disastrous, for the development of law itself. [Email: jogindersingh_toor@yahoo.com] |
|
|
THE
law of contempt in India, having stemmed from English law, was part of the
powers-inherent in judges of the High Courts and was recognised by the Privy
Council in Surinder Nath Benerji's case against the Chief Justice and Judges
of the Bengal High Court. By the time the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 came
into force.