Contempt of Courts - Defences available - Truth, Fair Criticism, innocent Publication
Section 5 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – a
Person shall not be guilty of Contempt of the Court for publishing any fair
comment on the merits of the case which has heard and finally decided.
The Proceedings should not be initiated lightly – Pradip
Kumar Biswas (Dr) versus Subrata Das – (2004) 4 SCC 573
Fair comments even if outspoken, but made without any
malice and without attempting to impair the administration of justice and made
in good faith in proper language, do not attract any punishment for contempt of
Court – AIR 1988 SC 3299.
There can be no manner of
doubt that in this country the principles which should govern cases of the
present kind are now fully settled by the previous decisions of this Court. we
may re; state the result of the discussion of the above cases on this head of
contempt which is by no means exhaustive.
(1 ) It will not be right to
say that committals for contempt for scandalizing the court have become
obsolete.
(2) The summary jurisdiction by
way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its
exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice.
(3) It is open to anyone to
express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a
judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any
decision given by him because "justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must
be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken,
comments of ordinary men".
(4) A distinction must be made
between .a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amounts to a contempt of
the court. The test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a
mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere
with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by his court.
It is only in the latter case that it wilt be punishable as Contempt. (1) [1959]
S.C.R. 1367. (2) [1953] S.C.R. 1169. 792
(5 ) Alternatively the test
will be whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the
public. To borrow from the language of Mukherjea, J. (as he then was) (Brahma
Prakash Sharma's case)(1) the publication of a disparaging statement will be an
injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the
people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter
actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's
administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind
of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Muthu Karuppan
versus Parithi, in Para 9, observed as – The contempt proceedings being quasi
criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in
criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed
for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the
alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit
imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities; equally,
the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on
conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt proceeding being quasi
criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under
the rules applicable in such proceedings. [AIR 2011 SC 1645]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment