Scribd
Upload
93 views2 pages

Constitutional Validity of S.2 (C) of The Contempt of Courts Act

The constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been debated as it balances freedom of speech with maintaining court authority. While critics argue it restricts free speech, the Supreme Court has upheld its validity, noting it is a reasonable speech restriction to maintain court dignity essential for justice. The court has laid down guidelines including requiring intentional scandalizing and allowing bona fide criticism. It has emphasized exercising contempt powers cautiously and only when criticism undermines court authority and justice administration. The validity of Section 2(c) depends on balancing these principles as free speech boundaries evolve.

Uploaded by

Gurneet Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views2 pages

Constitutional Validity of S.2 (C) of The Contempt of Courts Act

The constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been debated as it balances freedom of speech with maintaining court authority. While critics argue it restricts free speech, the Supreme Court has upheld its validity, noting it is a reasonable speech restriction to maintain court dignity essential for justice. The court has laid down guidelines including requiring intentional scandalizing and allowing bona fide criticism. It has emphasized exercising contempt powers cautiously and only when criticism undermines court authority and justice administration. The validity of Section 2(c) depends on balancing these principles as free speech boundaries evolve.

Uploaded by

Gurneet Singh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Constitutional Validity of Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (1000

words):
The constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been
a subject of intense debate and scrutiny, as it raises fundamental questions about the
balance between the freedom of speech and expression and the need to maintain the
authority and dignity of the courts. This provision, which defines criminal contempt as
"scandalizing or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court," has been criticized by many as an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
Despite the criticisms, the Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the
constitutional validity of Section 2(c) in several landmark cases. In the case of E.M.
Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (AIR 1970 SC 2015), the court held
that Section 2(c) is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, as
it is necessary to maintain the authority and dignity of the courts, which is essential for
the administration of justice and the rule of law.
The court's stance was reiterated in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of
Orissa High Court (1974 AIR 710), where it laid down guidelines to prevent the abuse of
Section 2(c), including the requirement that the alleged contempt must be a deliberate
and intentional attempt to scandalise the court or lower its authority.
In the case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker (1988 AIR 2023), the court ruled that fair
and bona fide criticism of the judiciary or its judgments is not contempt, as long as it is
made in a responsible and respectful manner and does not impair the administration of
justice. This ruling further clarified the scope and limitations of Section 2(c), ensuring
that legitimate criticism and public discourse are not unduly curtailed.
Furthermore, in the case of Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K. Jain (2010 8
SCC 281), the court emphasized that the truth of the statement or opinion is a valid
defense against contempt charges, provided that it is made in good faith and is a matter
of public interest. This ruling reinforced the principle that freedom of speech and
expression should be protected, especially when it pertains to matters of public
importance.
While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 2(c), the Supreme Court has also
laid down safeguards and guidelines to prevent its misuse and strike a balance between
the freedom of speech and expression and the maintenance of the authority and dignity
of the courts. These guidelines include the requirement of intentional and deliberate
attempt to scandalise, the allowance for fair and bona fide criticism, and the recognition
of truth as a defense against contempt charges.
Critics argue that Section 2(c) is still vague and subjective, and that the guidelines
provided by the court may not be sufficient to prevent the chilling effect on free speech
and public discourse. They contend that the provision should be amended or clarified to
provide more objective and specific criteria for determining what constitutes
scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court.
However, the court has emphasized that the power to punish for contempt should be
exercised with utmost restraint and caution, and only in cases where the criticism or
opinion is calculated to undermine the authority and dignity of the courts and impair
the administration of justice. The court has recognized the delicate balance that must be
maintained between the competing principles of freedom of speech and expression and
the need to maintain the authority and dignity of the courts.
Ultimately, the constitutional validity of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, hinges on this delicate balance. As society evolves and the boundaries of free
speech continue to be tested, it is essential that the courts remain vigilant in upholding
this balance and ensuring that neither principle is sacrificed at the expense of the other.
The precedents set by the Supreme Court, along with the guidelines and safeguards
provided, serve as a framework for navigating this complex issue and preserving the
integrity of both the freedom of speech and the administration of justice.

You might also like