Freedom of expression, known in ancient Greece as "Parrhesia," permitted individuals to debate

politics and religion publicly. It evolved with the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1791. Contempt of court dates back to decisions
like R. v. Almon (1764) and is anchored in upholding judicial respect. Disobeying king-
appointed judges was considered contemptuous in ancient times.

In India, Article 19 ensures free speech and unrestrained expression, with no authority control.

It helps in:
● Discovery of truth
● Provides public information
● Creates Strong Democracy
● Protects Human Rights

Hamdard Dawa Khana Vs. UOI

The 1954 Act was challenged because it violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(f) of the Indian
Constitution. The Supreme Court found that because it restricted ads rather than speech, it did
not infringe on free speech and expression.

However, the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and has reasonable
exceptions, with contempt of court being one of them.

Contempt of Court: It means willful disobedience of the court orders and is regulated under the
Contempt of the Court Act, 1971. S 2 (b) and (c) define the two modes of contempt, i.e. civil and
criminal, respectively.

There has been timely conflict between the freedom of speech and expression and the contempt
of court, which are discussed below with these case laws.

Bhadrakant Mishra Vs. The Registrar of Odisha

The Supreme Court of India declared that the critical word is "justice," not "judge," and that the
primary concern is justice, not judges. The Contempt of Courts Act protects the freedom of
expression and access to justice. Contempt rules should be used only when there is malicious
intent to breach the court's dignity and not fair or insignificant comments made against the
judiciary and judicial employees.

D.C. Saxsena Vs. CJI

The Supreme Court emphasised how free expression benefits the legal profession by
encouraging judicial progress and dignity. It also plays an essential role in human rights
protection as a foundation for activism and legal practitioners in a democratic democracy.

In the case of Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn vs R.K.Jain (2010), the court highlighted that
contempt statutes target acts purposely damaging judicial integrity rather than free expression,
emphasising the freedom to criticise court judgements within boundaries of respect.

Contempt of court trials, such as that of Prashant Bhushan (2020), highlight issues. Fines, which
can be symbolic at times, imply guilt. The contradiction between free expression and court
dignity is ambiguous, relying on judicial discretion. The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act outlines
what isn't contempt but not what is. To guarantee speech rights while honouring the court,
legislation with broader definitions is required.