Criminal Contempt

Posted on by user

Criminal Contempt

Introduction

Criminal contempt is a potent but often misunderstood weapon in the Indian judicial arsenal. It protects the integrity, authority and functioning of courts by punishing acts or publications that scandalize the judiciary, obstruct judicial proceedings, or otherwise impair the administration of justice. For litigators, media lawyers, in-house counsel and judges, an accurate grasp of criminal contempt is indispensable: it sits at the intersection of Article 19(1)(a) freedoms and the constitutional duty of courts under Articles 129 and 215 to preserve their authority. Missteps can lead to speedy proceedings, personal liability, and reputational damage; conversely, correct deployment of contempt law can deter attacks on the judicial process and protect fair adjudication.

Core Legal Framework

  • Constitution of India
  • Article 129 — The Supreme Court is a court of record and has, inter alia, power to punish for contempt of itself.

  • Article 215 — Every High Court is a court of record and has, inter alia, power to punish for contempt of itself.

  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

  • Definition (Section 2(b)): Criminal contempt is defined as:
    “the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any act whatsoever which—
    (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
    (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
    (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”

  • Statutory and Procedural Context

  • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act) codifies and regulates the powers of courts to punish contempt, balances the constitutional contours of contempt jurisdiction, and provides statutory defences and procedural safeguards read into contempt proceedings by the courts.
  • Criminal contempt proceedings are in rem and summary in character but must meet basic audi alteram partem standards. Courts may proceed suo motu or on petition/complaint.

(NB: The Act contains definitions, procedural provisions and defences which have been shaped and interpreted by the judiciary. Practitioners should consult the Act text and recent decisions for procedural particulars.)

Practical Application and Nuances

This section addresses how criminal contempt actually functions in practice and the critical factual and legal elements practitioners must engage with.

  1. Nature and forms
  2. Three functional heads: scandalizing the court (attacks on judicial character/authority), interference with pending proceedings (publications that may prejudice an accused or party), and obstruction of administration of justice (actions that hamper enforcement, execution, or judicial processes).
  3. Mediums: newspapers, television, books, blogs, social media (Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp forwards), speeches, affidavits, letters, tweets by public figures and even conduct in court.

  4. Suo motu cognisance is common — courts may take notice of remarks in public domain.

  5. Ingredients and burden of proof

  6. The core question: does the impugned act or publication have a real tendency to undermine the authority of the court or to obstruct the due course of justice?
  7. Elements to establish criminal contempt (typically for prosecution/complainant):
    • Publication/act: demonstrable material (printed copy, link, broadcast, witness account).
    • Nexus to court/administration of justice: indication that the material targets a court, judge or pending judicial process.
    • Tendency to scandalize or interfere: persuasive showing of a real risk — not merely hurt feelings or disagreement.
    • Causation and temporal link: proximity to relevant judicial events (e.g., remarks during hearing or about ongoing trial) strengthens the case.

  8. Mens rea: While not every form of contempt needs proof of criminal intent, many courts examine whether statements were made recklessly or maliciously. Honest, bona fide fair criticism presented without intent to scandalize carries weight as a defence.

  9. Defences and limiting principles

  10. Fair criticism as part of free speech: Courts have repeatedly held that fair, temperate and bona fide criticism of the judiciary or a judicial decision, expressed in good faith, is not contempt.
  11. Truth: Truth alone is not an automatic shield; in certain situations the accused must show that the publication was true, in public interest, and made with bona fide belief. The contours vary with facts and judicial inferences.
  12. Qualified privilege and reporting: Accurate, fair reporting of judicial proceedings ordinarily attracts protection, but selective reporting which creates false inferences can attract contempt.

  13. Lack of prejudice: Where the publication does not create a real risk of prejudice to a trial or the administration of justice, courts may decline to find contempt.

  14. Evidence and proof strategy

  15. Primary evidence: copies/screenshots of the publication, broadcast recordings, social media metadata, timestamps, URLs and server data establish publication and timing.
  16. Context evidence: contemporaneous reactions, distribution reach (circulation numbers, retweets), editorial notes, translations, or comments that amplify meaning.
  17. Witnesses: editors, authors, social media account holders, technical experts for provenance.
  18. Causation and impact: expert evidence on potential prejudicial impact is rare but, for social-media mass dissemination, analytics may show reach and likely prejudicial effect.

  19. Apology and retraction: framed, unequivocal apologies and retractions can and often do influence remedial outcomes.

  20. Procedural posture and remedies

  21. Initiation: suo motu, petition or private complaint. Courts may require a hearing and give notice.
  22. Interim measures: courts may pass temporary restraining orders or direct takedowns of offending content where imperative to protect ongoing processes.

  23. Outcomes: admonition, exemplary costs, fine, or imprisonment. Many courts prefer admonition, costs, or conditional orders where the contemnor retracts or apologizes.

  24. New realities: social media and instantaneous publication

  25. Speed and viral spread escalate the risk. A single tweet can be treated as contempt if it meets the legal tests.
  26. Anonymous or pseudonymous content raises identification issues; courts have ordered discovery of IP/tracking records from intermediaries or platforms under judicial process.

Illustrative examples
– A columnist publishes an article accusing a judge presiding over a high-profile matter of taking bribes. The piece is replete with allegations but provides no verifiable proof and goes to press while the case is sub judice → high risk of criminal contempt (scandalizing + interfering with due course).
– A lawyer tweets a thread criticizing a judgment’s reasoning using measured, evidence-based critique → likely fair criticism; less risk of contempt unless it attacks personal integrity of judge or attempts to mobilize public pressure.
– A social-media meme implying a judge is “bought” which is widely shared during an ongoing criminal trial → strong likelihood of contempt proceedings.

Landmark Judgments

  • In Re: Arundhati Roy — The Supreme Court, taking cognisance of certain public statements and interviews by Ms. Arundhati Roy that were found to scandalize the court and interfere with administration of justice, addressed the boundaries between legitimate criticism and contempt. The case is significant for applying the scandalizing contempt test and reaffirming that public personalities’ comments about judges may attract contempt if they lower judicial authority or interfere with proceedings.

  • In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020; 2022) — The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of tweets by a prominent lawyer and public figure. The proceedings clarified (a) that even strong criticism by lawyers/public figures may constitute contempt where the language imputes corruption or severely lowers the authority of the judiciary; (b) the court’s inclination to afford an opportunity to apologize; and (c) the need to balance free expression with safeguarding judicial independence. These matters illustrate modern courts’ approach to social media, apologies, and remedial outcomes in contempt jurisdiction.

(Practitioners should read full texts of the above judgments for doctrinal nuances; the cases are widely reported and frequently cited in contempt jurisprudence. There is a substantial body of Supreme Court and High Court decisions clarifying definitions, defences and procedural safeguards.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

Practical advice for both defence and initiating parties.

For defence counsel (person alleged to have committed criminal contempt)
– Immediate steps on learning of a proceeding:
– Preserve evidence: save screenshots, timestamps, drafts, editorial instructions and deletion logs.
– Do not delete the original material hastily — deletion can be used adversely (but a genuine retraction/apology is different).
– Move quickly to file a concise statement/affidavit setting out context, bona fides, and whether the publication was an opinion, fair criticism or reporting error.
– Procedural objections to consider:
– Challenge maintainability if the court lacked jurisdiction (e.g., contempts of subordinate courts: ensure proper forum).
– Seek time and full opportunity to be heard. Ensure the court follows principles of natural justice.
– If proceedings were initiated by private party, test locus of complainant where relevant; some courts have denied relief where the petition was a disguised collateral assault.
– Substantive defences:
– Emphasize bona fide public interest, absence of malicious intent, truth or reasonable belief in truth (if applicable), restraint and lack of real tendency to obstruct justice.
– Press for acceptance of apology if genuine—courts frequently prefer retraction/apology over punishment unless conduct is egregious.
– Mitigation:
– Offer an unconditional public apology (crafted carefully), offer to retract or publish corrigendum.
– Offer to undergo mediation where judicially permissible and acceptable to court.
– Avoid:
– Flippant or hostile responses; engaging in further public invective will worsen the posture and be used in aggravation.

For initiating counsel (party seeking contempt action)
– Timing and locus:
– Act promptly — delay weakens claims where prejudice is alleged and the impugned material circulates broadly.
– Establish nexus between publication/act and actual effect on proceedings.
– Evidence assembly:
– Produce authenticated copies, show circulation/reach, note timing vis-à-vis judicial events.
– Focus on concrete prejudice or realistic tendency to undermine court authority.
– Remedies to seek:
– Apology, retraction, injunctive takedowns (where necessary), costs or fine; imprisonment is exceptional and sparingly applied.
– Tactical considerations:
– Be mindful of free speech issues; overreliance on contempt may invite counter-claims or negative public scrutiny.
– If the contemnor is a member of the bar, consider professional disciplinary routes as alternative/complementary remedies.

For media and corporate counsel (advising publishers/hosts)
– Drafting standards to minimise risk:
– Use qualified language when critiquing judiciary; avoid imputations of corruption without verified evidence.
– Add disclaimers and contextualise opinions as opinions where appropriate.
– Institute pre-publication checks for stories touching on ongoing cases—legal vetting should be mandatory for sensitive material.
– Platform takedowns:
– Be ready to respond swiftly to court orders; establish compliance protocols for legal notices and preservation of content.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Treating truth as an absolute defence — courts weigh truth against public interest and bona fides.
– Assuming apologies will always absolve — they help but are accepted at judicial discretion; the timing and sincerity matter.
– Failing to preserve evidence — absence of metadata or context hampers defence.
– Underestimating the court’s tendency to act suo motu, particularly on viral social media posts involving judges or active trials.

Conclusion

Criminal contempt is a narrow but forceful doctrine: it protects the authority of courts and the administration of justice, yet it must be exercised with restraint to accommodate constitutional freedoms. Practitioners must master three practical tasks: (1) identify whether an impugned statement falls within the statutory heads in Section 2(b) (scandalizing, prejudicing proceedings, obstructing justice); (2) marshal contemporaneous evidence and contextual materials to prove or disprove tendency or intent; and (3) use procedural levers — apologies, retractions, jurisdictional objections, and careful pleadings — to shape outcomes. In the social-media age, the contours of contempt are actively evolving; vigilance, promptness, and calibrated legal strategy determine whether a statement is robust, permissible criticism or an actionable contempt.