Madras HC: Criminal Contempt Initiated Against Advocate For Sharing ‘Derogatory’ Whatsapp Audio Messages Against Judge

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated by the Madras High Court against an advocate who had shared WhatsApp audio messages regarding a judge that were derogatory in nature.
• Justice M Dhandapani had taken note of the messages and initiated the suo moto contempt proceedings.
• The audio messages shared via WhatsApp claimed that the actions carried out by the judge were not in favor of the welfare of advocates.
• It was held that the acts of the advocate are covered under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court had initiated a contempt case under Section 14 of the Act.
• The matter has been listed in front of the Chief Justice to decide the appropriate Bench for hearing the case.

INTRODUCTION

Contempt of court, frequently referred to just as "contempt", is the offense of being rebellious to or insolent towards a courtroom or a court of law and its officials by means of conduct that goes against or opposes the position, equity and nobility of the court. There are comprehensively two classes of contempt: being discourteous to lawful experts in the court, or unyieldingly neglecting to submit to a court order.

Contempt procedures are particularly used to uphold remedies given, for example, injunctions. In certain jurisdictions, the refusal to react, to summon, to affirm, to satisfy the commitments of a judge, or to give certain data can establish contempt of the court. At the point when a court concludes that an activity comprises contempt of court, an order can be issued that announces that an individual or association has ignored or been discourteous of the court's position, and is "found" or "held" in contempt.

The judge is empowered to force sanctions for acts that disturb the court's ordinary cycle and disrupt the administration of justice. Contempt of court may result from an inability to comply with a legal request of a court, showing affront for the judge, disturbance of the court procedures through bad conduct, or distribution of material or non-revelation of material. A judge may impose a fine or imprisonment for somebody seen as blameworthy of contempt of court.

CONTEMPT OF COURT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS

In Australia, contempt of court can result in imposition of fine or imprisonment if a person refuses to stand up in the presence of a judge. In Belgium, an insult directed towards the court would count as contempt. In Canada, contempt of court is a common law offence which includes, failure to maintain a respectful attitude, wilful disobedience of the court’s order, insulting the dignity of the court, and preventing the administration of justice. A person charged under contempt can be charged with fine or imprisonment upto 2 or 5 years depending on the severity of the contemptuous act. In Hong Kong, acts which insult a judge, disrupt legal proceedings, obstruct the course of justice, disobey a court order or judgement, or breach a duty are included under contempt of court.

CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

In India, contempt of court is of two types. Civil Contempt is covered under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Civil Contempt can be defined as an act of wilful disobedience towards a judgement, decree, direction, order, or writ issued by a court. Under Criminal Contempt, which is covered in Section 2 (c) of the Act, any act of publication which scandalises or lowers the authority of the court, interferes with the judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice is classified as Criminal Contempt.

EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENCES

As given in Section 3(1) of the Act, innocent publication is not equivalent to a contemptuous act. A person who publishes anything related to an ongoing proceeding, about which he or she had no reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeding was ongoing, will not be charged under contempt. Similarly, under Section 3 (2), any publication with regard to a proceeding which is not ongoing and not pending, cannot be classified as contempt. Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act states that publication of a fair and accurate report on a judicial trial or proceeding was not equivalent to committing an offence of contempt. Quite similarly, Section 5 states that criticism of a judicial act which is fair in nature cannot be deemed a contempt. Section 6 holds that a person who has made a complaint against judicial officers in good faith cannot be charged with contempt. Section 20 also states that no proceedings of contempt of court can be initiated against a person or body of persons after one year after the commission of the contemptuous act. According to Section 13, not all acts of contempt are punishable. An act which is contemptuous in nature will only be punishable if it interferes with the administration of justice to a reasonable extent or it has a justification by truth.

IMPORTANT CASES

• BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [1954 AIR 10]: It was decided that insulting the court occurs when there is an assault on a judge or the court, with or without reference to specific cases, by projecting ridiculous and slanderous defamations on the personality of the judges. This is vital on the grounds that it creates doubt in the psyche of the public.
• C. K. DAPHTARY AND ORS. V. O. P. GUPTA AND ORS. [1971 AIR 1132]: It was held that any publication that would interfere with the proceedings of the court and obstruct the administration of justice would amount to contempt. Moreover, remarks against judges based on past conduct or the judgements given by them in the past reduce public faith in the judicial system and hence count as contempt.
• S. MULGAOKAR V. UNKNOWN [(1978) 3 SCC 339]: Held that judiciary cannot be said to be completely immune to fair criticism. Contempt action is only to be used in cases where malicious intent is directly present.

CONCLUSION

Civil Contempt is essential as disobedient litigants who overlook the decrees of the court can't be let-off, else it would genuinely influence the dissipation of equity and justice and trust of individuals and the public at large in the judiciary. Trust, confidence and certainty of the residents in the legal machinery is absolutely important for the presence of Rule of Law.

Nonetheless, Criminal Contempt ought to be justified, if not totally eliminated from the Act. This is on the grounds that it tends to be utilized to check and curb Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

Criminal Contempt abuses the right to speak freely and is obviously subjective.