Normally, the punishment side of a legal provision is directly related to how much attention it gets. For instance, the death penalty is one of the most debated topics on public platforms because the state kills criminals. However, exceptions do exist. Less punishable offences also tend to make headlines. They do it on the sheer weight of the principles ingrained in them. Contempt of court is also one of them.
Dhoni corners IPS officer
M. S. Dhoni has filed a criminal contempt petition in the Madras High Court against IPS officer G. Sampath Kumar. Sampath is the one who investigated the infamous 2013 IPL spot-fixing and betting scandal. In one of the related cases, Sampath had submitted that it was due to the Supreme Court that a SIT could not get access to certain portions of the Mudgal Committee report.
According to Dhoni, Sampath insinuated that the honourable SC had a motive in not providing the sealed cover. Dhoni also alleged that the Madras High Court, the office of the Advocate General, and designated Senior Counsels of the Madras High Court were also on Sampath’s radar.
Earlier, Dhoni had filed a defamation suit against the same officer. The contempt of court allegation will add an extra layer of authenticity to Dhoni’s fight against Sampath. Simply because contempt of court is one of the most constitutionally legitimate acts.
Also read: Kunal Kamra has a severe meltdown after Arnab’s bail, to face Contempt of Court case
Contempt provisions in our lawbook
The Constitution has provided the Supreme Court and High Courts with explicit powers to punish someone for their contempt. Articles 129 and 142 (2) do the job for the Supreme Court, while Article 215 does it for the High Courts. For lower courts, special acts have been brought forward to protect their dignity. The latest of them is the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
There are two types of contempt of court. One is civil contempt, defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. A person commits civil contempt when he or she wilfully disobeys a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. It also applies when the person violates his own undertaking submitted to the court. Civil contempt is not considered a heinous crime as there are high chances of human error in cases involving civil contempt.
Also read: SC issues notice to Rahul Gandhi for contempt of court after the Rafale judgment
Extra attentiveness in Criminal Contempt
This is what makes it different from criminal contempt. Practically speaking, it is not criminal contempt unless a person enjoying high reputation in the intellectual circle does it. According to Section 2(c) of the aforementioned act, the person speaking, writing, or publishing anything with respect to the court has to ensure that their actions are in line with preserving the integrity of the judiciary. Scandalous hit pieces lowering the authority of the Court should not be put on a public platform.
Additionally, the person disseminating information on public platforms also needs to ensure that their pieces do not interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.
No elitism in the Act
The act has left space for fair criticism as well. While criticising any judgement or any other stuff related to judicial functioning, the critics have to ensure that he is doing it on factual grounds and in a dignified way.
It is here that Prashant Bhushan faltered when he accused the former Chief Justices of corruption. The man should have done it with evidence, but he did not have any in the kitty.
A similar mistake was committed by Justice C.S. Karnan when he accused many High Court judges of being corrupt, partial, and dependent. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the highest punishment under the act.
The sentencing also established the fact that judges are also akin to common citizens when it comes to contempt provisions. Possibly, the lawmakers were apprehensive about the judiciary shielding its own members. Nothing else explains their placing a specific section in the Act to disable it. It is in line with the objectives of the Act, which are to “limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of court.”
This is also the reason why HCs and SCs have been vested with powers to take action on either their own motion or those sanctioned by Advocate Generals. The Advocate General is there to provide legitimacy to contempt charges and ensure that a person is not unfairly charged.
People’s comfort is the reason why lawmakers have provided for the discharge of accused on mere apology. The apology should satisfy the case. Moreover, if the accuser establishes that he did not intend to harm the reputation of the judiciary, he would be exempt from charges.
The act is fairly balanced in letter, but its practical manifestation has not been so smooth. The reason being that it is in direct conflict with freedom of expression. The courts have been handed the power to balance both, but non-uniformity in judgments casts a shadow of doubt over their effectiveness.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AddxPsHJ6pQ