Facts of the Case
A person filed an appeal before the High Court. After hearing both sides, the High Court delivered its judgment. The person, dissatisfied with the decision, did not file any further appeal but instead made personal allegations against the judges who delivered the judgment. The remarks included accusations of bias, incompetence, and wrongdoing, made publicly through written statements and social media. These remarks were intended to lower the dignity and authority of the court.
A petition was filed before the High Court alleging that the person’s behavior amounts to Contempt of Court.
Issues in the Case
- Whether making personal and defamatory allegations against judges for an unfavorable judgment amounts to Contempt of Court.
- Whether the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to criticize judges and judicial decisions.
- Whether such criticism crosses the limit of fair criticism and tends to scandalize the authority of the court.
Legal Principles Covered
A. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
- Every citizen has the right to express opinions, including criticism of judgments.
B. Reasonable Restrictions – Article 19(2)
- Freedom of speech is subject to restrictions, including contempt of court.
C. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Section 2(c): Criminal Contempt includes:
- Any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize the authority of courts.
- Any act that lowers public confidence in the judiciary.
D. Fair Criticism vs. Scandalizing the Court
- Fair and academic criticism of judgments is allowed.
- Personal attacks on judges intending to damage the reputation or independence of judiciary are not protected.
E. Case Law
- E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970)
Held: Statements attacking judges personally or suggesting corruption amount to criminal contempt. - In Re Arundhati Roy (2002)
Held: Criticism that lowers the authority of the judiciary or undermines public confidence invites punishment for contempt. - Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974)
Held: Allegations of bias against judges without proof amount to scandalizing the court.
Possible Judgment
The person’s conduct of making personal allegations against the judges does not constitute fair criticism. It is an attempt to damage the integrity and authority of the judiciary. Such statements are not protected by Article 19(1)(a), as they violate the reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) concerning Contempt of Court.
The Court would hold that:
- The act amounts to Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- The person is liable for punishment, which may include fine and/or imprisonment.
- The judiciary must be protected from attacks that lower public confidence in its impartiality.
Therefore, the action of making personal allegations against judges clearly invites contempt of court, and the person can be legally punished.
About lawgnan
Discover the fine line between fair criticism and contempt of court at Lawgnan.in. Understand how Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech, while Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions to uphold judicial dignity. Learn through landmark cases like E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, In Re Arundhati Roy, and Baradakanta Mishra, which define the scope of legitimate criticism. Know why personal allegations against judges harm public trust in the justice system. Visit Lawgnan.in for in-depth legal insights, simplified explanations, and expert analysis of constitutional law and contempt principles in India.
