Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines what is “contempt of court”:
“(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;”
Now, “civil contempt” and “criminal contempt” are defined in Section 2(b) and 2(c) respectively:
“(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, 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;”
So, from the point of view of your question, what is relevant is that when you say something, by spoken words or by written words, you should not scandalise the court, should not lower the authority of a court, should not prejudice or interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding, should not interfere or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.
These are very wide and general words. However, over a period of time, now it is said that you can criticize any judgment in a fair manner, but you should not criticize the judge unnecessarily by attributing any unnecessary motives to him.
We are in a democracy. Every institution is accountable in one way or the other. It is quite common to see people criticising the judgments of the courts, including those of the Supreme Court, in public forum and in media. I have myself done it on many occasions. There is nothing wrong in that. However, while criticising a judgment, always try to be fair and respectful. Do not criticise the judgment for the sake of criticism. Your criticism should be based on valid points (though there could be difference of opinions), and not on witch-hunting. It should be a constructive criticism, not with the intention of scandalising the court.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
