(This brief note is prepared by Akshat Bhushan, a second-year student and Associate Editor of PCLS Blog. The meeting was held on 27 July 2020 over Skype.) In light of the contempt proceedings initiated against Advocate Prashant Bhushan, the Progressive Constitutional Law Society-HNLU Chapter, held a detailed discussion on this subject on July 27, 2020. In this meeting the members of the Society touched upon various issues regarding the contempt law in India. The members first analysed the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Constitution of India. Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience of any judgment order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Section 2(c) which defines criminal contempt brings within the purview of its definition any publication which ‘scandalises or lowers the authority of the courts’, ‘prejudices the judicial proceedings’ or ‘obstructs the administration of justice’. Section 12 lays down the punishments that can be awarded for contempt of court. The members also made a reference to Article 129 which empowers the Supreme Court and Article 214 which empowers the High Court to punish for contempt of itself. Therefore even if we repeal the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 the courts would still have the powers under the constitutional provisions to punish for contempt of itself. The members then discussed a number of landmark judgements in the area of contempt law in India. In, M.B. Sanghi v. HC of P&H the court observed that the purpose of the contempt of court act is to protect the fair name of judiciary. Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P it was held that Fair criticism was no contempt. Same judgement was given in Re Mulgaokar. This was a reiteration of Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the State v. Banamali Das tampering of evidence was also held to be contempt as it disrupted the proceedings of the court.
The members then discussed the jurisprudence on contempt law laid down in other countries, namely the U.S, U.K and Singapore. Then there was a sort of a debate which ensued between the members who argued for and against the scraping of contempt provisions in India. The members arguing in the favour of striking down contempt provision talked about the opaque and inadequate in-house disciplinary mechanism that have failed to hold the judges accountable for their actions. The very nature of contempt proceedings is such that the accused is at a disadvantage because usually the adjudicating authority is also one of the parties. In such a scenario if we continue to have the ambiguously worded criminal contempt provisions, then it would put the accused at an even greater disadvantage. Therefore even though we may continue to retain the civil contempt provisions to ensure that people abide by the orders, judgments and decrees of the Court, it would be desirable to do away with the vague provisions of criminal contempt. Those arguing against the scrapping of contempt law contended that contempt provisions are very important to protect the credibility of the judicial institutions. In times where the Legislature and Executive institutions continue to be marred by partisan tendencies, the judiciary continues to be the most trusted pillar of Indian democracy. Therefore it was argued that it is absolutely necessary to take actions against individuals and organisation who lower the authority of the courts or bring it into disrepute by imputing motives to the judges.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2020
Categories |