The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the power to punish for contempt of court must not be used as a shield to protect judges from criticism or as a weapon to silence dissent. The Court emphasised that contempt jurisdiction — though necessary to preserve the dignity of the judiciary and ensure proper functioning of courts — must always be exercised with restraint, sensitivity, and compassion. The Court underscored that the authority to punish for contempt necessarily carries with it a concomitant power to forgive. When a contemnor expresses genuine remorse and contrition, the Court reasoned, mercy should play a central role in judicial conscience.
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court set aside a one-week simple imprisonment sentence imposed by a High Court on a woman who had issued a circular calling judges part of a “dog mafia,” in the context of a dispute in her housing society. While the Court accepted that the remarks in the circular were contemptuous — capable of scandalising the court — and that the High Court had erred in not issuing any show-cause notice initially, the apex court found fault with the punitive response. The woman had promptly appeared at the High Court when proceedings began, tendered an apology under the relevant statutory provision, and expressed unconditional remorse for her actions. The Supreme Court held that once a sincere apology is offered, the purpose of contempt law — to uphold judicial dignity — does not necessarily require custodial punishment.
The Court observed that the High Court’s reliance on previous precedents was misplaced because the factual matrix differed significantly: in prior cases, contumacious statements were made repeatedly or without any remorse, or involved serious attempts to interfere with judicial processes. Here, by contrast, the appellant had acknowledged her error at the earliest opportunity, accepted responsibility, and renounced the defamatory statements. Under the statutory scheme, the Court said, accepting such genuine remorse and remitting the sentence is not only permissible but desirable.
In its ruling, the Court reiterated that contempt powers are not personal armour for judges, nor a sword to silence legitimate criticism. The bench held that while the majesty of the law must be preserved, the human fallibility of individuals must be recognised as well. The Court urged that contempt jurisdiction be exercised with circumspection, balancing two competing imperatives: maintaining the authority and functioning of the judiciary, and safeguarding citizens’ right to free speech, including critical public discourse about the judiciary.
The verdict reinforces the principle that the institution of justice does not gain from draconian, mechanical use of contempt powers. Rather, it thrives when courts show magnanimity, treat remorse with empathy, and preserve the delicate equilibrium between authority and accountability. The decision signals that courts will no longer countenance contempt proceedings being used as a tool to suppress dissent or shield judges from scrutiny — especially when the accused promptly accepts their mistake and seeks reconciliation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.