India’s antiquated law on contempt of court restricts personal liberty and must be overhauled

1

In the UK and US, where both civil and criminal contempt laws are in operation, substantial amendments have constrained the powers of judges who might otherwise have acted to vindicate their authority, pomp and majesty which are anathema to a democratic institution.

Approximate Read Time :1 Minutes

After having raised the issue of whether the clubby and secretive collegiums system actually preserves the independence of the judiciary former Supreme Court judge, Justice Markandey Katju, has now trained his guns on India’s antiquated contempt of court law. He has made the valid point, in this newspaper, that judicial supremacy cannot be based on the law of kings in a democracy. Is interference or disruption of the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice contempt of court? Or, does criticism of a judgment or a judge constitute sufficient ground for invocation of the dreaded law?

While it ought to be the former in India it’s often understood as the latter, as the contempt law has been employed when judges were made targets of personal attacks or to silence criticism of judgments. But criticising a judge or a judgment perceived to be flawed cannot be seen to be an illegitimate act that scandalises the court or seriously undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. In the UK and US, where both civil and criminal contempt laws are in operation, substantial amendments have constrained the powers of judges who might otherwise have acted to vindicate their authority, pomp and majesty which are anathema to a democratic institution.

The Indian contempt Act of 1971 has evolved over time to incorporate amendments that delineated what does not constitute contempt and framed rules to regulate contempt proceedings, yet inconsistencies remain. In 2006, an important amendment to the 1971 Act provided for truth as a valid defence in contempt proceedings, especially because the law was considered a threat to the fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of expression. Not just the doctrine of truth but public interest must be the cornerstones on which the law must be based. The judiciary, executive and legislature must ensure there are enough safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the power for contempt of court.

The story is derived from a syndicated feed and Team TOV has not made any amendments to it. Courtesy : TOI

One thought on “India’s antiquated law on contempt of court restricts personal liberty and must be overhauled

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Next Post

UPSC and CSAT are not for castaways, civil services must pick the best

Fri Feb 5 , 2021
Quality at entry into the civil services is a mixed bag today, with some extremely brilliant and many who are pedestrian succeeding. Civil servants are also required to read balance sheets of companies, engage in valuation for public sector privatisation, engage with and analyse large amounts of data while designing policy interventions, or do simple calculations to do breakeven or profitability analysis. They cannot get by without looking at data based evidence during policy design. All these require an analytical and logical mind, which needs to be tested at entry. In fact statistics was always part of UPSC evaluation for all these years and no one ever complained!

Latest Viral