OPEN ELECTIVE : PPL-418 MEDIA

POLICY AND LAW

Presentation By:

Dr. S. Kandasamy
M.Sc.,M.C.A.,M.A.,M.L.,M.L.,LL.M.,Ph.D(Law)
Associate Professor
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, LAW AND GOVERNANCE,
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
If men including judges and journalists, were angels, there would
be no problem of contempt of court. Angelic judges would be
undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists
would not seek to influence them. The power to punish contempt
of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the
functions which they exercise. (Frankfurter Judge of SC USA in
Pennekamp v. Florida, L.Ed, (1946)328 U.S).
In our system, how far judges are accountable they being not
elected representative of people.
Judges fixes school fee, they decide the quantity of water to be
released by upstream State, decide the height of the dam for
construction, factories to be closed on emitting pollution and so
on in the name of the justice.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of Court Act, 1971:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –
(a) ―Contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal
contempt
(b) ―Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Any willful disobedience to the orders of the court to do or
abstain from doing any act or breach of any undertaking given to
the court is prima-facie Civil Contempt; Vidya Sagar v. IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Dehradun, 1991 All CJ 586 (588); See
also State of Assam v. V.K.Vishnoi, 1993 (23) ATC 581 (587-588);
State of Orissa V. Bijaya Mohanty, (1993) 75 CLT 820 (830).
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
Criminal Contempt:
Sec.2(c ), Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
Criminal Contempt means the publication, whether by words
spoken or written, or by signs or 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.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
The object of contempt of court is safeguard the public interest
which would be adversely affected if the authority of the court is
denigrated and the public confidence in the administration of
justice is weakened. The object is not to afford protection to
judges personally from imputation or criticism.
The power to punish for contempt of court is given to protect and
vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of
justice is not perverted, prejudiced. obstructed or interfered with.
The law of contempt requires the balancing of two vital but
competing interest of democratic values the right to freedom of
speech and the necessity to preserve the public confidence in the
judicial system.
The judiciary like any other institution does not enjoy immunity
from criticism.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
The erosion of public confidence test:
On the one hand is the democratic right to freedom of speech,
expression and criticism; on the other hand is the necessity to
shield the judiciary from indignity. There shall be dividing line
between criticism and indignity.
In Rajendra Sail v. M.P High Court Bar Association,(2005) 6
SCC 100, the SC held that the criticism shall always be dignified
and motives shall never be attributed:
The judgements of the court are public documents and can be
commented upon, analyzed and criticized but in a dignified
manner attributing motives. Before placing before public, whether
on print or electronic media, all concerned have to see whether
such criticism has crossed the limits as aforesaid and if it has been
resist every temptation to make it public.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
The Standard of Proof in Contempt matters:
The standard of proof required for contempt of court is the same
as that of any other criminal proceeding. The courts are loath to
punish the contemnor, if the act or omission complained of are
not willful.
In M.R Parashar v. Dr.Farooq Abdullah,(1984) 2 SCC 343, arose
out of a contempt petition filed against Chief Minister of J & K
allegedly making contemptuous statement in a news paper
against the judiciary. The C.M denied although the editor of the
news paper insisted that the speeches of the C.M published in the
news paper were accurate. But, it was not proved beyond
reasonable doubts.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT

In England even after enactment of Human Rights Act, 1998, the

law on ‘scandalising’ the court has not been abolished but unlike
India, truth and justification have long been a defences to charges
of contempt of court.
The courts in U.S.A follow a stringent test based on ‘clear and
present or imminent danger’. The SC laid in Bridge v. California,
(1911) 86 L.Ed 86,
What finally emerges from a clear and present danger cases is a
working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely
serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before
utterances can be punished.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
In Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan, (2001) 92 DL J 665,
Wah India Case, published the ratings of the judges of the Delhi
High Court along with their photographs related to their integrity
and knowledge of law and the merit of their judgements after
conducting a survey among ten percent of the members of Delhi
Bar Association.
On apology the Court directed that the reporting must be fair and
accurate.
In S.K Sundaram, In Re, (2001) 2 SCC 171, arose out of a suo
motu contempt action in the SC. Sundaram a Chennai based
advocate sent a telegram to then CJI Dr.A.S Anand, demanding his
resignation on the ground that he had exceeded the age of
superannuation. After this he filed a criminal complaint alleging
cheating, criminal breach of trust and falsification of records.
SC treated as contempt of court and sentenced to 6 months.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308,

arose out of objectionable writings by Arundhati Roy in her book
‘The Greater Common Good’. The judgement delivered by Anand
C.J set out certain passages from the book which the SC
considered objectionable.
SC held that vicious stultification and vulgar debunking cannot be
permitted to pollute the stream of justice. The court held that
Arundhati Roy had misused her literary fame to distort and
misrepresent orders, thus bringing the Court to ridicule. But
punishment was not made on the ground that she realized her
mistake.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
Rajendra Sail v. M.P High Court Bar Assn. (2005) 6 SCC 109,
Arose out of the murder trial of a trade union leader, Shankar
Guha Niyogi. The accused were found guilty and sentenced to life
imprisonment except for one accused person who was awarded a
death sentence. On appeal, the HC reversed the judgement and
the accused were acquitted.
A news report appearing in a newspaper, Hitavada on 4 Jul 1998
carried the caption, ‘Sail terms High Court decision in Niyogi
murder case as rubbish’. It was also alleged that the judges who
decided the matter had belittled respect for the judiciary by
pronouncing a biased and rubbish judgement.
The newspaper reporter and editor apologized but the speech of
Rajendra Sail was proved.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contend of speech was as follow:
a. The judgement of the murderers was rendered within a year
and the murderers were acquitted because they were wealthy
persons.
b. The judgement was rubbish and fit to be thrown into the
dustbin.
c. Sail would initiate an inquiry into the conduct of one of the
judges who was due to retire within a month.
d. A judge should not be assigned any important case two years
prior to his retirement because a judge who is on the verge of
retirement is for sale.
e. The judiciary has no guts, no honesty and is not powerful
enough to punish wealthy people.
Rajendra Sail and others were found guilty of contempt of court
and punished with a simple imprisonment for six months.