Court Emphasizes Caution in Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction, Highlights Right to Free Speech
The Kerala High Court has closed a decade-long criminal contempt case against M.R. Ajayan, the Chief Editor of an online news magazine, citing the trivial nature of the allegations and the importance of free speech. The case, initiated suo motu in 2017, revolved around a news report alleging that children of judges were studying in self-financing medical colleges, a claim deemed to undermine the judiciary's image.
The bench, comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar, highlighted the necessity for courts to exercise their contempt jurisdiction with caution, wisdom, and circumspection. The judgment underscored that the allegations in the news report did not have wide circulation and were not significant enough to warrant continuation of contempt proceedings.
The court referenced several landmark judgments, including those by the Supreme Court of India and foreign courts, to emphasize the judiciary's resilience against criticism. It cited observations from cases such as Sheela Barse v. Union of India and remarks by Lord Denning, asserting the judiciary's ability to withstand fair and reasonable criticism while maintaining public confidence through independence and quality of judgments.
The court concluded that the power to punish for contempt should not be used indiscriminately or in moments of irritation, as frequent invocation might adversely affect the dignity of the judiciary. The judgment reiterated the privilege of Indian citizens to express opinions freely, even if they are outspoken, provided they do not constitute offensive excesses.
In light of the prolonged pendency of the case, the limited impact of the allegations, and the judiciary's capacity to endure fair criticism, the court decided to close the contempt proceedings. The decision reflects a balanced approach between safeguarding the administration of justice and upholding the fundamental right to free speech.
Bottom Line :
Contempt of Court - Stray remarks in a news report need not be made the subject matter of contempt proceedings when the allegations are trivial, have limited circulation, and do not substantially undermine the dignity of the court. Courts must exercise their contempt jurisdiction cautiously, wisely, and with circumspection, keeping in mind the right to free speech and fair criticism of the judiciary.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 2(c) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
