Authored By: Arzoo
Panjab University, Chandigarh
ABSTRACT
The article considers the developing concept of contempt of court in India under increasing transparency, prompted by digital formats and public scrutiny, which requires a reconsideration of the immunity of judges. Contempt of court in India arose from English law and is now codified under the “Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”[1], and “Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution”[2], including civil contempt (not complying with orders of the court) and criminal contempt (scandalizing the judiciary). The Prashant Bhushan case (2020) represents a judicial exception, balancing judicial dignity along with an extreme position on free speech. Content in India broadly covers these areas of contempt when compared to reforms in the UK abolishing “scandalizing” in 2013 and First Amendment protection in the US. It is submitted that in a democracy, it is time to narrow the definitions of contempt of court, provide for areas of transparency, and ensure accountability for public officials.
KEY WORDS
Contempt of Court, Judicial Immunity, Transparency, Free Speech, Prashant Bhushan, Criminal Contempt, Civil Contempt, Judicial Accountability, Democracy, Public Scrutiny.
INTRODUCTION
A government has three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary. The judiciary administers justice through courts that can use contempt power to protect their own dignity. Contempt of court can be described as noncompliance with, disrespect to, or interference with court proceedings. Anyone can be in contempt of court, including lawyers and witnesses. The Prashant Bhushan case has reopened a debate about the laws concerning contempt. In a time when digital media and citizen journalism can disseminate and access information more broadly than ever before, we must reconsider our views of both judicial immunity and criminal contempt. Courts must respect their authority to self-regulate while ensuring transparency and accountability to the public. The article examines the need to rethink mathematical contempt powers for contemporary contexts and challenges to ensure that the judiciary remains the protector of constitutional values and compliance with the rule of law.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Contempt of court, introduced in English common law, has been dealing with disobedience to judicial authority since the 12th century.
It developed into two streams:
- criminal contempt (disruption of the administration of justice) and
- civil contempt (disobedience of court orders).
During the colonial rule in India, courts like Madras and Bombay exercised the powers of contempt, setting a precedent in Indian jurisprudence. Eventually, court contempt was codified through the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, which formalized contempt jurisdiction and contempt power, which ultimately evolved into the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which accurately defined and delineated the definitions and some manners of civil contempt and criminal contempt. Articles 129 and 215 in the Constitution vested higher courts with the power to punish for contempt. Indian law tries to balance the exercise of judicial authority while safeguarding free speech and openness; thus, contempt is an essential and contentious subject in the context of Indian democracy.
UNDERSTANDING CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of court is the deliberate act of ignoring, interfering with, or disrespecting the authority, dignity or operation of the courts. Generally, contempt is in two forms, civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt and criminal contempt serve differently and distinct purposes within the court systems.
- Civil Contempt: It is the willful disregard of a court order or judgment, or breach of an undertaking given to court. Civil contempt is designed to promote compliance and protect the rights of the parties – it is not punitive in nature and based upon the courts ability to compel a party to act. For example, a party is found in civil contempt of court when they do not perform the court ordered spousal maintenance, or do not comply with an injunction.
- Criminal contempt: It deals with the protection and preservation of the authority and dignity of the judiciary. Criminal contempt entails conduct that either scandalizes the court or interferes with a judicial proceeding and justice, such as making defamatory comments about a judge, and conduct that interrupts unforeseeable matters of importance to the court. Criminal contempt is punitive in nature, civil contempt is not punitive as civil contempt punishes after, respect for, deterrent deterrent for conduct in the future. An apology may suffice for civil contempt; however, in offending scenarios of criminal contempt, an apology to the court may not be accepted. This is important and critical in the effort to preserve and maintain judicial effectiveness and reliability.
In India, this is covered by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and also by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, which entitle the Supreme Court and High Courts to impose punishment for contempt.
TRANSPARENCY VS. JUDICIAL SANCTITY
The Increasing Public Scrutiny
Judicial decisions are not just bound to the pages of law reviews anymore. There are social media and independent platforms where citizens, activists and journalists can critique decisions instantaneously. With that said, in regard to criticism within these public platforms, this raises a distinct question:
Should criticism of a judge or judgments be punishable for contempt? Or should they be protected for free speech?
Case in point: Prashant Bhushan vs. Union of India (2020)[3]
The Prashant Bhushan contempt case in 2020 was a pivotal point in the context of legality and democracy or public critique and response in India, and it also shows the increasing sensitivity of the judiciary to public critique. The Bhushan case began when Prashant Bhushan, a senior advocate and public intellectual made two tweets chastising the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court for what he viewed to be a six-year decline of democracy in India. One tweet showed the CJI, alone, on a high-end motorcycle belonging to a political leader while the country was under lockdown for the COVID-19 outbreak. The second tweet simply noted that historians would note the complicity of the Supreme Court in the last four Chief Justices’ diminishment of democracy.
In its ruling, the bench, stated that the tweets of Bhushan were malicious, factually distorted, and scandalized the judiciary, which is contempt of court. It held that criticism of the judiciary is also part of free speech, but this criticism must be responsible and not undermine or diminish public confidence in the system.
Bhushan defended his statements, insisting they were a legitimate expression of concern and hence of conscience and a legitimate expression of democratic free speech. He has refused to give an unconditional apology for the tweets, although he has paid the fine of ₹ 1 to the court, which it imposed upon him; he also filed a review against the judgement. The case unleashed a vigorous public debate; some insisted the judgement was necessary in order to ensure the dignity of the judiciary. Others saw the judgement as a chilling precedent for legitimate/dissenting critique of the judiciary.
The Prashant Bhushan case represented a turning point in the response of the Indian judiciary to public criticism; it has raised profound questions regarding the extent of judicial accountability and the right to free speech. It revealed the issue of contempt law needing clear boundaries and led to much broader discussions about the role of the courts in a vibrant democracy.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: SHIELD OR SHROUD?
Judicial immunity removes financial responsibility of judges for their decisions made in the course of their job duties. This immunity creates protection to judicial independence but typically removes a level of accountability related to reasonable critique of judges and the judiciary. In a transparent society, do judges deserve immunity from public scrutiny?
THE CASE FOR REFORM INCLUDES:
- Democratic Accountability: Judges are no different from other public servants and should remain subject to public accountability.
- Freedom of Expression: Consequences for criticism of judges may chill speech.
- Modern Developments: The UK has reformed their contempt law to fit better with society’s democratic nature.
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
- United Kingdom: The offense of “scandalizing the court” was removed from the law in 2013.
- United States: Strong protections for speech under the First Amendment have made contempt for criticism of judges rare.
- India: The offence of criminal contempt remains widely defined, and criticized for vagueness.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM
- Amend criminal contempt law to limit the definition of contempt excluded reasonable criticism made publicly and academic debate formally or informally.
- Set out a codified definition and summary of what contempt of court and judge is, within the law so it is not arbitrary.
- Promote and develop methods of Judicial Transparency, etc., public data set on judges, live-streaming and video recordings of proceedings, and ultimately reasoned or written decisions.
- Improve Internal Accountability like judicial performance reviews and reports, and Judicial or General Disciplinary Review Organizations.
CONCLUSION
In the digital age and increasingly aware society, contempt of court should stop being a form of judicial face-saving and instead become a method of principled accountability. Courts can ensure respect for the rule of law, but they ought not to use their contempt powers to stifle legitimate criticism of public officials. There is a need for reforms that clearly delineate negative vitriol from a positive critique, that protect judicial accountability without impinging on free speech, and that distinguish openness and transparency of justice in the whole of the Constitution. Judges’ judicial immunity should be calibrated so that independence in judges is conceived in relation to accountability. Public trust in the judiciary is incurred through public consumption and factual engagement with the process and not isolation. Revamping contempt of court laws asserts the purpose of judiciary legitimacy in a democracy.
REFERENCE(S):
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/contempt-court-does-criticism-lower-authority
https://www.nayalegal.com/the-role-of-contempt-of-court-in-upholding-judicial-integrity
https://ncji.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Pound-Judges-Forum-Report-2015-FINAL.pdf
[1] Indian Code, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 < https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1514/1/197170.pdf > accessed on 25 August, 2025
[2] Drishti Judiciary, Article 129 and 125 of Indian Constitution < https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/court-of-record > accessed on 26 August, 2025
[3] Prashant Bhushan vs. Union of India (2020) [WP(C) No. 1053/2020]
