Truthfully speaking

The Supreme Court has strongly underlined that truth based on facts is a valid defence when a person is accused of contempt of court. The judgment reiterates an amendment passed by Parliament in 2006,and for someone unacquainted with the finer points of the law,seems laughably obvious. How can a well-meaning and true accusation be contemptuous of an institution that is the ultimate arbiter of truth? The Supreme Courts judgment returns the law to its real spirit.

But the judgment is nonetheless necessary. For one,it is an acknowledgement by the judiciary of the need to bring some clarity into our vague law. Contempt of court powers can be exercised in two ways. The first is civil contempt of court,which is when the court takes on an agency for not following its order (directed at governments,for example). This power is necessary for the court to have any capacity for enforcement. Since the judiciary also requires respect to enforce judgments that will never please everyone,there is a need for special laws to protect the judiciary from slander and needless accusation. However,these criminal contempt of court provisions are articulated in highly ambiguous language,and can potentially be used against anyone who is seen to scandalise,prejudice or lower the authority of the courts. The lack of truth as a defence only added to the ambiguity of what exactly contempt of court means. This uncertainty created a climate of fear,and insulated the court like no other institution in the country. After all,there is a distinction between honest criticism that afflicts the comfortable,and destructive criticism that erodes the courts aura.

This judgment relating to Excise Law Times is the first illustration of that redefinition,as the court has itself stripped away ambiguity,and set a significant and welcome precedent. As Justice Singhvi said about the judgment,Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act represents an important legislative recognition of one of the fundamentals of our value system: truth. This reiteration of truth as a defence would also make it easier for those who are harassed for speaking their minds to prove their innocence. In Indias painfully slow legal system,where the process itself can be the punishment,threats of contempts of court must not be used to muzzle genuine criticism. It is hoped that this pronouncement will provide the courts with the ability to defend themselves against mud-slingers while providing,for those who tell inconvenient truths,the rights of free speech and liberty.