The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act impose reasonable restrictions on free speech to protect judicial authority, and judges of superior courts are not liable for contempt in their own courts.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, CJ.

1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that Sections 2 (c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act of 1971) are unconstitutional and void. The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that Section 16 of the Act of 1971 is applicable to the judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17 (5) of the Act of 1971 has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

2. We have heard Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned Advocate, appearing in person, Mr. S. Biju, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, Dr. K.P. Pradeep, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 – Bar Association, Ms. B. Vinitha, learned Senior Government Pleader, and Mr. Rajit, learned Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India.

3. The first challenge of the Petitioner to Section 2 (c)(i) and other provisions of the Act of 1971 is that these provisions violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. of the Act of 1971 deals with the definitions. ‘Civil contempt’ is defined under (b) as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court:

‘Criminal contempt’ is defined under Section 2 (c), which reads thus:

“(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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.”

***

Section 2 (c)(i) makes the publication, as specified therein, which scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, an act of criminal contempt.

4. The Petitioner advanced contentions referring to the works of various authors and commenting on the historical roots of contempt under Roman law. He submitted that the underlying foundations of the Act of 1971 are based on an archaic cathartic jurisprudence, akin to the concept of confessions by torture, and such archaic law is contrary to the modern principles of justice and fair play. The provision that punishes a person for the words and actions which “scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court” [Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act of 1971] is void because it abrogates the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India submitted that there is no merit in the challenge and the impugned provisions do not violate any fundamental rights as contended. He submitted that the right under Article 19(1)(a) of the is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, and that the Act of 1971, as held in various decisions, does not violate the right to freedom of speech and expression.

5. Article 19 of the Constitution of India protects certain fundamental rights regarding freedom of speech and others. It lays down under Article 19(1)(a) that all citizens shall have the right, inter alia, to freedom of speech and expression. However, Article 19(2) makes it clear that nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any la