Any Law Passed By Parliament Or State Legislature Can’t Be Held To Be Contempt Of Court

General Studies Paper -2

Context: While closing the 2007 Salwa Judum case, the Supreme Court recently observed that any law made by the Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of Court.

SC’s Direction

• Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a constitutional court, the said enactment would have the force of law.
• The top court affirmed that the legislature can pass a law to nullify the basis of a judgment or amend a struck-down law to align it with a constitutional court’s ruling.
  • This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy.

About Contempt of the Court

• Definition: It refers to any act or omission that obstructs or interferes with the due administration of justice or shows disrespect to the authority, dignity, and integrity of a court.
• Types of Contempt:
  • Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience to any judgment, order, direction, or decree of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
  • Criminal Contempt: Any act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, obstructs administration of justice in any other manner.
• Constitutional and Statutory Basis:
  • Article 129: Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers to punish for its contempt.
  • Article 215: High Courts enjoy similar powers.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Statutory framework defining and regulating contempt proceedings in India.
  • Article 142(2): Also empowers the Supreme Court to make orders for the punishment of contempt, subject to any law made by Parliament.
• Safeguards:
  • Truth as Defence: Post-2006 Amendment, truth can be a valid defence if it is in public interest and made in a bona fide manner.
  • Fair and Reasonable Criticism: Constructive and balanced criticism of judicial decisions is permitted.
  • Apology: A genuine, unqualified apology can often lead to dropping of charges.

Issues and Concerns

• Potential restriction on freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a))
• Vagueness of definitions, especially “scandalizing the court,” which can be subjective.
• Potential for misuse to shield the judiciary from legitimate criticism.
• The fact that similar laws have been abolished in some countries, like the UK.

Recent Developments

• Law Commission 274th Report (2018): Recommended retaining criminal contempt in its current form, citing persistent challenges like non-compliance and erosion of respect for courts.