Mains Paper 2: Polity
Prelims level: Contempt Law
Mains level: Basic structure of Indian Constitution
• The Meghalaya High Court’s order finding the guilty of contempt, and asking them to “sit in a corner” till the rising of the court and imposing a fine of ₹2 lakh each.
• It is a heavy-handed response to comments in the newspaper on the court’s earlier orders.
• What makes the order even more unfortunate is the explicit threat to ban the newspaper and jail them if they fail to pay the fine.
• While courts are indeed empowered to decide whether a publication scandalised or tended to scandalise the judiciary or interfered with the administration of justice, there is no legal provision for an outright ban on it.
• The origin of these contempt proceedings appears to be the State government’s unilateral decision to withdraw certain facilities to retired judges without consulting the court administration.
• After the matter was not resolved on the administrative side for two months, the court initiated suo motu proceedings and issued some directions.
• It was because of a news item, accompanied by a commentary on the court’s directions, that the contemnors had incurred the court’s displeasure.
• The offending comments appeared to imply that the directions regarding extending facilities, including protocol services and domestic help, and reimbursing communication bills up to ₹10,000 a month and a mobile phone worth ₹80,000, to retired judges amounted to “judges judging for themselves”.
• It is a moot question whether the court ought to have taken umbrage at this remark or ignored it. It would serve the cause of preserving the dignity of the higher judiciary if overzealous comments made by activists or journalists were ignored.
• In 1999, the Supreme Court had brushed aside some adverse remarks by activists by saying, “the court’s shoulders are broad enough to shrug off their comments.”
• The defence argued the court should frame specific charges before convicting them for contempt.
• It is open to the court to try a case of contempt in a summary manner, the use of personalised views of the publication’s past record to hand down the verdict puts a question mark over the decision-making process.
• While there may be a need to curb tendentious criticism of the judiciary and self-serving comments on ongoing proceedings in mainstream and social media.
• There is a compelling case to use the contempt law sparingly, and avoid the impression that it is being used to stifle free speech or dissent.
• Lenience, not anger, ought to be the primary response of a detached judiciary.
Q.1) The chairman and members of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) are appointed by the president on the recommendations of a six-member committee. The committee does NOT include
a) Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
b) Union Home Minister
c) Leaders of the Opposition in both the Houses of Parliament
d) Chief Justice of India
Q.1) The contempt law must not be used, or seen to be used, to stifle dissenting views. Comment.