1 / 73

LAW OF CONTEMPT AND MEDIA

LAW OF CONTEMPT AND MEDIA. THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 CONTEMPT OBJECTIVE To examine the basic purpose of contempt law in India. Ninty nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses. George Washington. DEFINITION.

william-parks
Download Presentation

LAW OF CONTEMPT AND MEDIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAW OF CONTEMPT AND MEDIA

  2. THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 CONTEMPT OBJECTIVE • To examine the basic purpose of contempt law in India. • Ninty nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses. George Washington

  3. DEFINITION Contempt of court is defined as an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. V.C. Mishra’s case; (1995) 2 SCC 584

  4. MEANING OF CONTEMPT 1. Wilful disobedience to, or open disrespect of a court or judge. 2. Contempt means lack of respect or reverence for something.

  5. Contempt of court is disobedience of the court by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court order, it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of justice into dispute. Baradakanta Mishra V Bhimsen Dixit ; 1973 (1) SCC 446

  6. CONTEMPT LAW PURPOSE To keep the administration of justice pure and undefiled.

  7. CONCEPT Contempt jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of court itself.

  8. NEED To deal sternly with any action which has the tendency to • interfere with, or • obstruct the due course of justice.

  9. CONTEMPT JURISDICTION TOUCHES UPON TWO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS • The right to personal liberty • The right to freedom of expression

  10. CONTEMPT LAW A CONFLICT between Freedom of speech in the Constitution versus Need to safeguard the status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice.

  11. WHILE INVOKING CONTEMPT LAW CARE IS TO BE TAKENTHAT • The dignity of the court is to be maintained at all costs. • Contempt jurisdiction, which is of a special nature, should be sparingly used.

  12. EXCEPTIONS TO CONTEMPT • Innocent publications • Fair comments/criticism

  13. SECTION 3 Innocent publication and distribution of matter if the person had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending in a court.

  14. REACH OF SECTION 3 • Publication Sec 3(1) and (2) • Pending • Not pending • Distribution Sec 3 (3)

  15. PUBLICATION may be by • words • spoken, or • written • signs • visible representation • or otherwise

  16. SECTION 4 Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding

  17. SECTION 5 Fair criticism of judicial act on the merits of any case heard and finally decided.

  18. SECTION 7 Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera.

  19. Fair comments, even if outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith and in proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt. Jaswant Singh V Virender Singh 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384

  20. Judgments are open to criticism that must be done without casting aspersions on the judge and the courts, and without adverse comments amounting to scandalising the courts.

  21. EXAMPLES OF WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT • Not caring of the warrant issued by the criminal Court. • Any wilful disobedience of the order of the court to do or abstain from doing any act or breach of any undertaking given to the court. • Attributing improper motive to a judge or scurrilous abuse of a judge will amount to scandalising the court. Rajesh Kumar Singh V High Court of Judicature of MP; AIR 2007 SC 2725.

  22. It is to be noted that the criticism of judiciary should be constructive and not destructive. One may weigh a Judge critically - academically but never inveigh him personally.

  23. DEFENCES TO CONTEMPT • Truth Section 13 2. Privileges

  24. WHEN IS CONTEMPT NOT PUNISHABLE?Section 13 • If it does not substantially interferes with the due course of justice. • Justification by truth is a valid defence, if it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bonafide.

  25. R.K. ANAND V REGISTRAR DELHI HIGH COURT ; (2009) 8 SCC 106

  26. Justices BN Agrawal, GS Singhvi and Aftab Alam

  27. Judgment by Justice Aftab Alam

  28. Facts of the case • The criminal trial in a case of reckless driving by Sanjeev Nanda, a young person of a very wealthy business family which crashed to death six people in Delhi meandered endlessly for eight years. • NDTV, a news channel telecast a programme on 30 May 2007 in which the Special Public Prosecutor and R.K. Anand, the Senior Defence Counsel, were seen negotiating sell out of a prosecution witness for a very high price.

  29. According to NDTV, the programme was based on a clandestine sting operation. 3. Delhi High Court suo motu initiated a proceeding for criminal contempt and issued notice to R.K. Anand and IU Khan under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 4. During the pendency of the matter in the High Court, R.K. Anand filed a petition requesting Justice Manmohan Sarin, the Presiding Judge to recuse himself from the proceeding.

  30. He stated in the petition that he had a feeling that he was not likely to get justice at the hands of Manmohan Sarin. He made the prayer that the main matter be transferred to be heard by some other bench of which Justice Sarin was not a member. 5. The High Court held that the evidence and circumstances fully established that both IU Khan and R.K. Anand were guilty of the charges framed against them.

  31. It accordingly convicted them for criminal contempt of court and sentenced them by prohibiting them from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of four months from the date of the judgment. The court also recommended to the full court to divest them of the honour of being designated as Senior Advocates and also sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 2000/- each.

  32. Law Laid Down • Suomotu cognizance taken by High Court on basis of telecast alone. The court examined the audio and video recordings of sting operation. The findings of High Court were sustained. It had rightly punished them by prohibiting them from appearing for a period of four months and holding that they had forfeited their right to be designated as Senior Advocates and imposing fine.

  33. 2. A motivated application for recusal needs to be dealt with sternly and viewed as interference in due course of justice leading to penal consequences. 3. Directions given to High Courts not having framed rules under Section 34 of Advocates Act to frame rules within four months. The Rules should indicate need for specific notice to be issued when punishment of debarring an Advocate from practice be imposed.

  34. 4. Telecast of sting operation exposing collusion between defence counsel and prosecutor did not amount to contempt of court.

  35. The programme was intended to prevent an attempt to interfere with or obstruct the due course of a pending matter. It was in larger public interest and served an important public cause. 5. Grave concerns and dismay expressed on decline of ethical and professional standards amongst lawyers. Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of different States cannot escape their responsibility.

  36. 6. High Court’s powers of superintendence over subordinate judiciary. Power of control should also be exercised to protect them from external interference that may some times appear overpowering to them and to support them to discharge their duties fearlessly. Criminal justice system should be insulated from external influences aimed to subvert trials.

  37. IN RE : VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (1995) 2 SCC 584

  38. Facts of the case Allegations of contempt committed in the face of a High Court were made against a Senior Counsel. He was asked by the Bench regarding the provision under which the impugned order had been passed. He started shouting at the bench. He said would get the Judge transferred or impeached and threatened by saying that he had “turned up many judges”. He created a scene in the Court. He lost his temper and, according to the Judge, “except to abuse him of mother and sister” the contemnor had insulted him like anything. The contemnor was also President of the Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council of India. The matter was referred by the Acting Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.

  39. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance and issued a show cause notice to the contemnor. In his counter and additional counter, a different version of the incident was put up by the contemnor. He alleged that in fact it was the judge who hadcommitted contempt of his own court. He filed application for initiating proceedings against the Judge.

  40. At a subsequent stage written unconditional apology was also filed by the contemnor by seeking therein to withdraw his application, petitions, counters, allegations and submissions. The Court sentenced the contemnor VC Mishra to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. Also he was suspended from practicing as an advocate for a period of three years.

  41. Issues Raised • Whether Supreme Court can take cognizance of contempt of a High Court and initiate suomotu proceedings against a contemnor? • Whether a contemnor has a right to examine the Judge or Judges before whom contempt was committed?

  42. Whether it is necessary to summon the Judge for examination to verify the allegations against the contemnor when the version of the contemnor is different? • Whether a junior member of the Bench is barred in any way by any convention or otherwise, from putting questions to the Bar?

  43. Law Laid Down • Supreme Court can take cognizance of a contempt of a High Court and suomotu initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor. • When a High Court is dealing with a case of criminal contempt and there is justification for adopting summary procedure and punishing the offender on the spot, the contemnor has no right to examine the Judge or Judges before whom contempt is alleged to have been committed.

  44. 3. Jurisdiction and power of Supreme Court to take cognizance of any contempt of court and to award punishment for it are not circumscribed by any statute. 4. Judiciary in a democratic written Constitution has been assigned a special role and hence the need to protect its dignity and authority. There is a need and justification for vesting the extraordinary power in a court to punish for the contempt of the Court.

  45. 5. Every member of the Bench is on a par with the other member or members of the Bench. The lawyer or the litigant concerned has to answer the questions put to him by any member of the Bench.

  46. ARUNDHATI ROY, In Re (2002) 3 SCC 343

  47. Facts of the case Arundhati Roy, a writer, was interested in the result of a litigation pending before the Supreme Court. It was alleged that at a dharna organised in front of Supreme Court she had raised improper slogans against the Court. When issued a show cause notice, she denied having raised such slogans. She further stated that the Supreme Court could not spare a sitting Judge to hold inquiry into Tehelka Scandal. However, when it came to an absurd, despicable and entirely unsubstantiated petition, it displayed a disturbing willingness to issue notice. She added that the same indicated a disquieting inclination to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagreed with the Supreme Court.

  48. The court sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, she was to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

  49. Issues Raised • Whether it would be permissible to initiate contempt proceedings for scandalising the court where the contents of an affidavit cause no contempt to any Judge personally but the action tried to cast an injury to the public by creating a wrong impression in the mind of the people regarding integrity, ability and fairness of the judiciary?

  50. 2. Extent to which and circumstances in which fair criticism of Judge, court or its functioning would be permissible under Article 19(1) (a) and (2)? 3. Whether freedom of press is guaranteed separately from and is the same as freedom of expression under Article 19(1)?

More Related