Courts to exercise contempt to uphold majesty of judiciary: SC

"If there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, the Courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the offender for committing contempt," a bench of Justices A R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Published:November 2, 2016 4:32 pm
supreme court, judiciary, contempt of judiciary, fundamental right of speech, India news, Indian Express Supreme Court. (File Photo)

Courts must exercise the power of contempt to punish offenders if there is a “calculated effort” to undermine the judiciary, the Supreme Court has ruled. “Every citizen has a fundamental right to speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Contempt of Court is one of the restrictions on such right. We are conscious that the power under the Act has to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner.

Watch what else is making news

“If there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, the Courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the offender for committing contempt,” a bench of Justices A R Dave and L Nageswara Rao said.

The observation came in a verdict in which the apex court upheld the Rajasthan High Court finding in a contempt case.

The High Court had awarded two months jail term to four activists of Marxist Communist Party for making “scandalous statements” against the judiciary after some accused in a 2001 case of murder of a trade union leader were granted anticipatory bail.

The apex court, while concurring with the findings of the High Court, modified the sentence taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, saying the contemnors would be liable to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each only and not serve the jail term.

The case pertained to the murder of a trade union leader of Sri Ganganagar district in Rajasthan on December 18, 2000 and some accused being granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in February 2001.

The contemnors, while addressing a gathering of party workers in front of the Collectorate at Sri Ganganagar on February 23, 2001, had made “derogatory and scandalous statements” which were published in a vernacular newspaper.

“We approve the findings recorded by the High Court that the appellants have transgressed all decency by making serious allegations of corruption and bias against the High Court. The caustic comments made by the Appellants cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as fair criticism,” the apex court bench said.

It said the apology tendered by the contemnors and affidavit filed in the apex court does not inspire any confidence that the apology is made bona fide

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. H
    harun
    Nov 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm
    The same should be done with Govts as well who willfully ignore directions of the Court be it for drought relief or compensation to Individual seeking reddressal.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The Majesty of law should be upheld.lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;The other day we had a retired SC Judge attacked for having gone insane by a party spokesperson because he thought differently.
    Reply
    1. N
      NBR
      Nov 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm
      If contempt of court shd exist, then so also shd there be a contempt of Parliament, Contempt of Media and so on. Its purely hypocritical to say calculated efforts. Who is going to check calculation? Again the same court!! lt;br/gt;Once again establishes that Indian Judiciary is at its lowest ebb.
      Reply
      1. N
        NBR
        Nov 2, 2016 at 12:14 pm
        When other 3 pillars of democracy dont have a contempt, y this fav 4courts? Freedom of speech is kicked out. No wonder, no body respects judiciary.
        Reply
        1. P
          Prateik
          Nov 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm
          There is already contempt of Parliament. MPs/MLAs move censure motions.
          Reply
          1. V
            Vishwanatha
            Nov 3, 2016 at 6:01 am
            The term contempt of court must be restricted to cases where litigants refuse to obey the court orders. Then also it should not be called contempt of court if the Govt could not immediately implement court orders on PILs since most of the PILs are in reality Private Interest Litigations. The judges and judgements should be open to criticism in our vibrant democrac, especially since the judges have recently started to admit that they are also humans like others in society and that they are also prone to make errors. Finally, calling Judges by terms 'MY LORD, YOUR LORDSHIP etc, that is borrowed from British must end. Let us not disrespect JUDICIARY.
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments