Judiciary is one of the Pillar of Indian Constitution which was a separate body to implement the laws made by the Legislature. So there was also a need to protect it, to create some apprehension in the minds of people if they break any law they will be published for the same , further if they don’t obey the court’s decision they will be come under court of contempt.
In general contempt means to willfully disrespect or disgrace something. Therefore contempt of court is defined as an offence of been disrespecting court of law and it’s officers. Contempt of court may happen in two ways :-
To been rude , disobedience towards judge and other authorities or causing disturbance in the court even though warned by the judge .
To willfully disobey court’s order.
Court of contempt are of two types:-
Civil contempt :-Civil contempt means not to obey order of court in civil actions.
Criminal contempt:- In criminal contempt if person does any of following mention act it comes under criminal proceedings:-
Scandalising the court by lowering it’s authority
Interference in the due judicial proceedings
An obstruction in the administration of justice
Exceptions of contempt of court
If any of the action done by the person which later proofs that the act was done in innocence, or if publication and distribution of that matter is fair and reasonable for the importance of public knowledge these activities not considered as court of contempt . After amendment of contempt of Court Act,2016 truth in statement made no contempt of court.
One year time is given to fill a case against the action of court of contempt from the date of allegation of contempt of court.
Constitutionality of contempt of court
Under Article 129 and Article 215 of our Constitution empower the Supreme court and High courts to punish anyone who commits contempt of court .Thus represents that disobedience of judicial institution cannot be tolerated, similarly in the Sec 10 of Contempt of court Act,1971 defines the punishment for contempt of court .But sometimes contempt of court is misused by officers to protect themselves under an umbrella which results in taking away people’s fundamental right Article 19(1) Freedom of speech and expression. Whereas some reasonable restrictions are given under Article 19(2) where contempt of court proceedings arise.
In case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shankar Union Minister alleged the judges that they were biased toward rich class people. He also claimed all those who violate FERA regulations or are bank defaulters or are zamindars, find heaven in the Supreme Court. Contempt of court petition was filed against him but he was not convicted. But, in the case of E.M.S. Namboordripad v. T. Narayan Nambiar the then C.M. of Kerala E.M.S. Namboordripad claimed that the Supreme court judges are inclined more towards rich class people he was held liable for committing the offence of contempt of court. These instances per se show the misuse of power by authorities.
A month ago on 29 June 2020 the suo motu action taken by the Apex court against the eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan who in his Twitter account tweets about the CJI'S . Therefore three judges bench came to take an action against him for disrespecting and lowering the position of CJI in the eyes of people. Case in hands of court right now.
Recently a great debate is going on does we need contempt of court or we have to remove it as it curtails the freedom of speech and expression which is of major role in developing nations. As we see international constitution we find many countries who removed the concept of contempt of court like the USA and Britain from where we adopt this concept .
My opinion is not to remove this concept because freedom needs some reasonable restrictions too. Although their was a need of some relax should be given in court of contempt provisions and it’s should be applied on rare of rarest cases only like the Canada laws on court of contempt.
Mahakama ni moja ya nguzo za Katiba ya India ambayo ilikuwa mwili tofauti kutekeleza sheria zilizotengenezwa na Bunge. """Kulikuwa na haja ya kuilinda, kuunda wasiwasi katika akili za watu kwamba ikiwa wataki kuvunja sheria yoyote, watachapishwa kwa sababu hiyo, na ikiwa hawatatii uamuzi wa mahakama, watakuja chini ya mahakama ya kudharau." Kwa ujumla kudharau humaanisha kukosa heshima au kudhalilisha kitu kimakusudi. Kwa hiyo dharau ya mahakama inafafanuliwa kama kosa la kutoheshimu mahakama ya sheria na maafisa wake. Ukatili wa mahakama unaweza kutokea kwa njia mbili: Kuwa mchafu, kutomtii hakimu na mamlaka nyingine au kusababisha msukosuko mahakamani hata ingawa ameonywa na hakimu. Kukataa kimakusudi kutii amri ya mahakama. Mahakama ya dharau ni ya aina mbili:- Civil dharau: - Civil dharau ina maana ya kutotii amri ya mahakama katika vitendo vya kiraia. "Kukosa heshima ya mahakama ni kosa la jinai ambalo mtu anajaribu kulifanya kwa njia yoyote ya kisheria, ikiwa ni pamoja na ""kufanya aibu mahakama kwa kupunguza mamlaka yake, kuingilia katika utaratibu wa mahakama, kuzuia utoaji wa haki, na kuingilia kati katika shughuli za mahakama, ikiwa ni pamoja na vitendo vya mtu ambavyo baadaye vinaonyesha kwamba kitendo hicho kilifanywa bila hatia, au ikiwa kuchapishwa na kusambazwa kwa jambo hilo ni haki na busara kwa umuhimu wa maarifa ya umma.""" Baada ya marekebisho ya Sheria ya Ukatili wa Mahakama ya 2016, ukweli katika taarifa haukufanya uhatari wa mahakama. Mwaka mmoja ni kupewa kujaza kesi dhidi ya hatua ya mahakama ya dharau kutoka tarehe ya madai ya dharau ya mahakama. "Katika kifungu cha 129, kifungu cha 215, na kifungu cha 215, mahakama ya juu na mahakama za juu zina mamlaka ya kuadhibu mtu yeyote anayekosa heshima ya mahakama, na hivyo kuwakilisha kwamba kutotii kwa taasisi ya mahakama haiwezi kuvumiliwa, kwa hivyo katika kifungu cha 10 cha Sheria ya Kutotii Mahakama ya 1971, sheria hiyo inafafanua adhabu ya kukosa heshima ya mahakama. """"" Kwa kuwa baadhi ya vizuizi vya busara hutolewa chini ya kifungu cha 19 (2) ambapo dharau ya kesi ya mahakama inatokea. Katika kesi ya P.N. Duda v. P. Shankar Waziri wa Umoja alidai mahakimu kwamba walikuwa na upendeleo kuelekea watu wa tabaka tajiri. "Amesema kuwa ""watu wote wanaovunja sheria za FERA au wanaokosa malipo ya benki au ni zamindars, wanapata mbinguni katika Mahakama Kuu.""" Madai ya kudharau mahakama yaliwasilishwa dhidi yake lakini hakuhukumiwa. Lakini katika kesi ya EMS, Namboordripad v. T. Narayan Nambiar aliyekuwa C.M. Kerala EMS Namboodiripad alisema kuwa mahakimu wa mahakama ya juu wana mwelekeo zaidi kwa watu wa tabaka la matajiri, na kwamba ameshtakiwa kwa kosa la kudharau mahakama. Mifano hii yenyewe inaonyesha matumizi mabaya ya mamlaka na mamlaka. "Kama ilivyoelezwa, kesi hiyo ilisababisha mahakama ya juu ya India kuchukua hatua ya motu proprio dhidi ya mwanasheria maarufu Prashant Bhushan, ambaye katika akaunti yake ya Twitter aliandika ""Sehemu ya kesi ya CJI.""" Mahakama ya mahakimu watatu imemshtaki kwa kukosa heshima na kumdharau Jaji Mkuu. Kesi katika mikono ya mahakama sasa hivi. """Hivi karibuni kuna mjadala mkubwa unaendelea, je, tunahitaji kukataa mahakama au ni lazima tuiondoe, kwani inazuia uhuru wa kujieleza na kujieleza, ambao ni muhimu katika mataifa yanayoendelea." "Kama tunavyoona katika katiba ya kimataifa, tunaona nchi nyingi ambazo zimeondoa dhana ya ""kuidharau mahakama"" kama vile Marekani na Uingereza, ambapo sisi tunakubali dhana hii." Maoni yangu si kuondoa dhana hii kwa sababu uhuru unahitaji baadhi ya vikwazo busara pia. Ingawa wao walikuwa na haja ya baadhi ya kupumzika inapaswa kupewa katika mahakama ya kukataa masharti na ni lazima kutumika juu ya nadra ya kesi nadra tu kama sheria za Canada juu ya mahakama ya kukataa.