Judiciary Urged to Withstand Outspoken Criticism; Contempt Jurisdiction to be Exercised with Caution
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a contempt of court case against Advocate Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan, who faced allegations of making remarks intended to scandalize the judiciary during a channel discussion. The judgment, delivered by the bench comprising Mr. Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K. V. Jayakumar, emphasized the importance of resilience in the judiciary in the face of criticism.
The case was initiated by N. Prakash, who argued that comments made by the respondent during a discussion on 'Reporter TV' were designed to undermine the authority of the High Court. The Advocate General of Kerala had issued a sanction for contempt proceedings, suggesting that the remarks constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
However, the High Court, after a thorough examination of the facts, concluded that the judiciary must possess the strength to endure fair and outspoken criticism. The bench referenced several precedents from the Supreme Court, underscoring that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised judiciously and only in clear and undeniable cases.
The judgment highlighted the broader right of citizens to criticize systemic inadequacies and the necessity for judicial institutions to command respect through the quality of their judgments and conduct. Citing Lord Denning and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the court noted that criticism, even if outspoken, should not be suppressed unless it crosses the line into offensive excesses.
In closing the contempt case, the court observed that frequent invocation of contempt jurisdiction could potentially undermine the dignity of the court. The judiciary, it was stressed, should continue to maintain public confidence through its independence and resilience in the face of criticism.
Bottom line:-
Contempt of Courts - Stray remarks made by respondent during a channel discussion - Held, judiciary must possess strength and resilience to withstand fair, even if outspoken criticism - Power to punish for contempt must always be exercised cautiously, wisely, and with circumspection - Frequent or indiscriminate invocation of contempt jurisdiction may diminish the dignity of the Court rather than uphold it.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 15, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 215
N.Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947337
