Even An Attempt To Scandalize Or Lower The Authority Of A Court Is Criminal Contempt: Madhya Pradesh HC Imposes Fine On Convict
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, reiterated that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of the Court falls under the definition of Contempt of Court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act).
The Court imposed a fine on the Respondent while considering his unconditional apology to the Court, his old age, and his health condition. The Respondent was the Founder, Editor, and Publisher of a journal called 'Lost Justice,' which published articles that contained allegations against certain sitting Judges of the Court and commented about how certain cases were decided on the judicial side.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and comprising Justice Vishal Mishra, observed, “From the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the definition provided under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is apparently clear that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of a Court falls under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’”.
Advocate Ashish Shroti appeared as Amicus Curiae, Government Pleader S.S. Chouhan for the Petitioner, and Advocate Abhinav Singh Thakur for the Respondent.
The Acting Chief Justice of the High Court ordered the initiation of Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings against the Respondents under Section 2(c)(i) and (ii) of the CC Act.
The Court ascertained the issue: “whether the comments made by the respondent with respect to the judgments passed the Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Madhya Pradesh come under the preview of definition of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or not”.
The Bench noted that engaging in behavior that scandalizes the court, lowers its authority, obstructs justice, or challenges its majesty is considered criminal contempt. Any behavior that can potentially reduce the court's authority is also considered contempt. The Court observed that if a person's conduct brings the judge or court into contempt or lowers its authority, it is also considered contempt of court.
The Bench referred to the case of Baradakanta Mishra v High Court of Orissa [(1974) 1 SCC 374] and held that the comments made by the Respondent were not a fair critique and used inappropriate language. The Court noted that one of the comments passed by the Respondent that the Hon'ble Judge should be impeached for their overall performance was a deliberate attempt to scandalize the court and falls under the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the CC Act.
The Court, while noting the age of the Respondent, his medical condition, and his unconditional apology to the Court, held that a fine would be a just and fair punishment.
“Considered the arguments advanced. The age of the respondent contemnor is 85 years and he is bed ridden. The doctor has observed in his report that the contemnor is unable to walk and has suffered paralysis of right arm and right leg and has slurring of speech. The applications seeking his exemption from personal appearance were allowed vide order dated 20.09.2023. Considered from the totality of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, the age of the respondent-contemnor and his present health condition, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to impose a punishment of payment of fine”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition.
Cause Title: In Reference (Suo Motu) v Dr. N.S. Poonia
