Contempt of court, meant to protect judicial authority, is under renewed debate after recent confrontations involving senior judges. Critics argue that the contempt law often suppresses free speech and shields judges from fair criticism. Experts call for reform to balance judicial dignity with citizens’ freedom of expression.

BulletsIn

•  Contempt of court punishes disobedience or disrespect toward judicial authority.
•  Rooted in Articles 129 and 215; empowers higher judiciary to punish for contempt.
•  Two types: Civil (disobedience of court orders) and Criminal (acts lowering court authority).
•  2006 amendment allows “truth” and “public interest” as valid defences.
•  Cases like Katju vs Supreme Court and Justice Karnan episode highlight overreach concerns.
•  Several rulings (Arundhati Roy, Duda P.N., Auto Shankar) affirm right to fair criticism in good faith.
•  Critics say contempt power often misused to protect judges, not justice.
•  Justice Krishna Iyer termed contempt law “vague” and prone to curb civil liberties.
•  In democracies like the US, contempt rarely used to silence media or criticism.
•  Reform urged — law should ensure court’s functioning, not prevent legitimate scrutiny.