It is repeatedly said that the contempt proceedings are not meant for the protection of the judges personally but to protect the public.
In the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10, a 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held:
“It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various Judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened.”
This assumes importance in view of recent contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer in the Supreme Court of India.
It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court and the High Courts derive their contempt powers from the Constitution of India as also from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
