Truth may be defence in contempt cases soon

Under the present dispensation, a publication and its editor can be punished if a news report, though true, brings courts into disrepute. It provides for both civil and criminal action for defamation.

With the amendment, Law Minister Arun Jaitley is taking to a conclusion the assurance he gave to a conclave of editors and lawmen in February who voiced their fear against the recent spate of contempt proceedings initiated by the judiciary on news reports bringing to light their misconduct.

An example of that is the notices issued to newspapers which reported the Karnataka sex scandal involving high court judges.

Under the present norms, the media can be hauled for lowering the dignity of the court even if truth is proved in that case.

And it is only in India that such a situation exists.

The Australian High Court had gone so far as to rule in 1992 that, ‘‘so long as the defendant is genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice he or she is immune.’’

British courts also allow truth coupled with public interest as a defence to a charge of contempt of court.

The proposed change would also set to rest the varying interpretation of the Act by the Indian jurisprudence. While a Constitution bench had held that a truthful allegation about a judicial officer can never amount to contempt, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that ‘‘truthfulness or factual correctness is a good defence in an action for libel, but in the Law of Contempt there are hardly any English or Indian cases in which such defence has been recognised.’’