20 May A Deep Dive into Contempt Law in India
This article covers “Daily Current Affairs”
SYLLABUS MAPPING : GS Paper 2 : Polity and Governance
FOR PRELIMS : Contempt Provisions / Articles , Apex court rulings, Important Cases
FOR MAINS : “The simultaneous initiation of criminal contempt proceedings and the continuation of the CBI’s challenge to Kejriwal’s discharge in the same court illustrates the complexity of India’s justice system when political leaders are in the dock — creating real and perceived tensions between judicial neutrality, political accountability, and the rule of law.” Examine the institutional design challenges this case reveals. (15 M)
Why in News?
On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued criminal contempt notices to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders — former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, AAP Delhi chief Saurabh Bharadwaj, Durgesh Pathak, Vinay Mishra, and others — over alleged “defamatory and vilifying” social media posts, edited videos, and public statements targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The Division Bench gave all contemnors four weeks to file replies and listed the matter for August 4, 2026. The contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu (on its own motion) by Justice Sharma on May 14, 2026, in an order describing the alleged campaign as a “calculated campaign of vilification” intended to scandalise the judiciary and lower the authority of the Court. Simultaneously, the Court deferred the CBI’s revision plea against the trial court’s February 27, 2026 order discharging Kejriwal and others — listing it before a separate bench headed by Justice Manoj Jain.
Contempt of Court — Complete Statutory and Constitutional Profile
Constitutional Foundation
The power to punish for contempt is not merely a statutory creation — it is a fundamental constitutional power explicitly vested in the superior courts by the framers of the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”
This is the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court’s contempt jurisdiction. Being a “court of record” means its proceedings have permanent evidentiary value — and inherently includes the power to punish those who undermine its authority.
“Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”
Every High Court — including the Delhi High Court in the present case — has the identical constitutional power to punish for contempt. This is the basis for Justice Sharma’s suo motu order and the Division Bench’s notice. The constitutional power exists independently of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Provides that the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself — a reinforcing provision that underlines the constitutional supremacy of the contempt power.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Complete Framework
Definitions — What Counts as Contempt?
Defined as wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Example: A party ordered to pay alimony refuses to comply; a state government defies a court order directing it to pay compensation; a newspaper violates an injunction prohibiting publication.
Publication (whether by words, spoken or written, signs, visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or act which:
(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) Obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.
What Is “Scandalising the Court”?
The present case falls under Section 2(c)(i) — criminal contempt by scandalising or lowering the authority of a court. Scandalising the court means publishing material that tends to bring the court or a judge into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule in their judicial capacity — particularly by making false allegations about bias, partiality, corruption, or improper conduct. The key is that the attack must be on the judge’s judicial conduct — not on the judge as a private citizen.
- Legitimate criticism: Fair comment on a judge’s legal reasoning, a critique of a judgment on its merits, journalistic analysis pointing out errors of law — all permissible even if robust and sharp
- Scandalising (not permissible): Alleging a judge is biased against a particular community without any factual basis; circulating edited videos falsely presenting a judge’s conduct; publicly stating a judge cannot deliver justice due to political affiliations; personal attacks designed to intimidate a judge or lower public confidence in the judiciary as an institution
- The test: Would a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public lose confidence in the administration of justice as a result of the publication? (Established in E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar, 1970)
- In the present case: Justice Sharma held the AAP leaders’ acts amounted to a “calculated campaign” that “questioned the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judge by allegedly linking her with a political ideology” — squarely within Section 2(c)(i)
Procedure — How Contempt Proceedings Work
| Stage | Criminal Contempt Procedure | Who Initiates / Present Case |
|---|---|---|
| Initiation | Court acts suo motu (on its own motion); OR on motion of the Advocate General / Attorney General; OR on motion of any person with written consent of AG/Advocate General | Court itself (suo motu) — as in this case, by Justice Sharma on May 14, 2026 |
| Show Cause Notice | Court issues notice to accused contemnor to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated | Division Bench (Justices Chawla and Dudeja) — May 19, 2026; 4 weeks to reply |
| Hearing | Accused may appear in person or through counsel; can apologise or defend — truth is a defence if in public interest (Section 13) | Next date: August 4, 2026 |
| Amicus Curiae | Court may appoint an amicus curiae to assist — particularly relevant when respondents are unrepresented | Division Bench indicated amicus will be appointed; Solicitor General noted Kejriwal and others were unrepresented |
| Conviction | If satisfied that contempt is proved beyond reasonable doubt — same standard as criminal trial | Division Bench or larger bench, as the case may be |
| Punishment | Maximum: 6 months’ simple imprisonment or ₹2,000 fine or both; court may discharge or remit on apology | Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 |
Defences Available — Section 13
- Section 13(a) — Truth as a defence: The court may allow the defence of truth if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide. This was a significant 2006 amendment — before it, truth was NOT a defence in contempt proceedings
- Section 3 — Innocent publication: Publication not knowing of the pendency of a particular matter in court; publisher must prove they had no reasonable means of knowing
- Section 4 — Fair and accurate reporting: A fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings is not contempt, except in specific cases where the court orders publication prohibited
- Section 5 — Fair criticism of judgments: A fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided is permissible; it is NOT contempt to comment on a final judgment critically — only on a pending case where comment may prejudice the proceedings
- Section 6 — Complaint against presiding officers: A complaint made in good faith concerning the presiding officer of a subordinate court to any other judicial or administrative authority is not contempt
What Is Suo Motu Contempt?
A suo motu (Latin: “of its own accord”) contempt initiation occurs when a court takes up a matter on its own motion — without any formal petition by an aggrieved party. The court essentially acts as both the complainant and the judge. This is a significant power — it enables courts to protect their institutional dignity even when no private party comes forward to complain. However, it also raises natural justice concerns about impartiality, since the same court (or judge) that initiates proceedings is also adjudicating them — which is why the procedural practice is to assign the matter to a Division Bench different from the initiating Single Judge (as done here — Justice Sharma initiated; Division Bench of Justices Chawla and Dudeja is hearing).
Free Speech vs. Contempt — The Constitutional Tension
The contempt power exists in tension with Article 19(1)(a) — the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. India’s Constitution does not list “contempt of court” in Article 19(2)’s list of permissible restrictions on free speech — but the Supreme Court in Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain (2010) held that the constitutional power to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 215 is not limited by Article 19(2).
Judicial independence requires that judges can decide cases without fear of orchestrated vilification campaigns. If politicians or powerful entities can intimidate judges through sustained social media attacks, the independence of the judiciary is undermined — and with it, the rule of law. The right to a fair trial (Article 21) would be hollow if the judge could be targeted and forced to recuse through a campaign of defamation. The judiciary has no other means of self-protection except the contempt power.
Judges are public officials exercising enormous public power — they must be subject to robust public scrutiny and criticism. The contempt power has historically been misused to suppress legitimate criticism and journalistic inquiry. The extremely broad definition of “scandalising” — any act that “tends to lower the authority” — gives courts wide scope to punish criticism they dislike. The ₹2,000 maximum fine (unchanged since 1971) is not a credible deterrent; the real deterrent is the threat of incarceration — which has a deeply chilling effect on legitimate free speech.
Landmark Contempt Judgments — Judicial History
Kerala CM E.M.S. Namboodiripad gave a speech stating that courts were class instruments of oppression — commenting on Marxist ideology. The Supreme Court convicted him of contempt, holding that characterising the judiciary as a tool of class oppression fell within “scandalising the court.” Namboodiripad apologised and was released with ₹1,000 fine. The case established that political leaders are NOT immune from contempt law merely because their statements are part of political discourse.
Cabinet Minister Shiv Shankar gave a speech criticising the Supreme Court’s Maneka Gandhi judgment as being in favour of the “haves.” The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that fair criticism of a judgment already decided, even if scathing, does not constitute contempt. The court emphasised that judges must accept public criticism with equanimity — the contempt power should not be used to protect the judiciary from uncomfortable truths or hard questions.
Author Arundhati Roy made statements alleging bias and impropriety in the Supreme Court’s handling of the Narmada Dam case. She was convicted of contempt and sentenced to one day’s imprisonment plus a ₹2,000 fine. The court held that while a litigant has the right to appeal against a judgment, conducting a campaign outside the court to question the court’s impartiality crosses the line into scandalising. This case is closely relevant to the current AAP situation — the parallel being obvious.
The UK House of Lords held that publications that create a “real risk of prejudice” to proceedings constitute contempt — establishing the “real risk” test (stricter than India’s “tends to” standard). This is why UK contempt law is considered somewhat more protective of free speech than India’s. India’s broader “tends to scandalise” formulation gives courts wider discretion.
After the 2006 amendment inserting Section 13(a), the Supreme Court confirmed that truth is a valid defence in contempt proceedings if the publication is in public interest and made bona fide. This is a significant protection for investigative journalists and public interest commentators — but it places the burden on the accused to establish both truth AND public interest.
The Recusal Issue — Background to the Contempt Proceedings
The contempt proceedings arose from a specific background: AAP leaders had publicly alleged that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was biased against them in the Delhi excise policy case, and had demanded her recusal from the matter. When she rejected the recusal application, Kejriwal publicly stated he would neither appear before her personally nor through counsel — a highly unusual position.
- Recusal: A judge voluntarily withdrawing from a case where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias or a conflict of interest. The fundamental principle is “nemo judex in causa sua” — no one should be a judge in their own cause
- Test for recusal: The standard in India is the “reasonable apprehension of bias” test — would a reasonable, fair-minded and informed member of the public looking at the circumstances have a reasonable apprehension that the judge might not be impartial? The test is objective, not subjective
- Justice Sharma’s decision: She dismissed the recusal application, holding that the allegations of bias were based on “conjecture” and did not meet the legal threshold — then transferred the main matter to another bench for judicial propriety, while retaining the contempt proceedings (which concern allegations against her personally)
- AAP’s position: After the recusal rejection, AAP leaders escalated their campaign on social media — the court characterised this as a move from legitimate legal challenge (recusal application) to illegitimate pressure tactic (defamation campaign)
- Important principle: Rejecting a recusal application does not constitute contempt; but orchestrating a social media vilification campaign against a judge because she rejected the recusal may cross the line into scandalising the court
Practice Questions
1. The power of the Supreme Court and every High Court to punish for contempt derives from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively — making it a constitutional power that exists independently of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, “criminal contempt” includes not only wilful disobedience of court orders but also publication of matter that scandalises the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
3. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (as amended in 2006) allows truth as a complete and absolute defence against criminal contempt proceedings, regardless of whether the publication was in public interest or not.
4. When a High Court judge initiates suo motu contempt proceedings, the established practice of judicial propriety requires the case to be heard by a Division Bench different from the initiating judge — to prevent the same judicial officer from being both complainant and adjudicator.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Statement 1 is CORRECT.Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution explicitly vest the Supreme Court and every High Court respectively with the power to punish for contempt as a constitutional power inherent in being a “court of record.” This constitutional power exists independently of — and is superior to — the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Act regulates and formalises the exercise of this power but does not create it. This distinction is important: even if the Contempt of Courts Act were repealed, the courts would retain their constitutional contempt power under Articles 129 and 215.
Statement 2 is CORRECT.Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, “criminal contempt” is defined in Section 2(c) as the publication of any matter or act which: (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; OR (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; OR (iii) obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Note that “civil contempt” — defined in Section 2(b) — covers wilful disobedience of court orders. Criminal contempt, by contrast, is about the external impact on the judiciary’s authority and the administration of justice.
Statement 3 is INCORRECT.Truth is NOT an absolute and complete defence under the 2006 amendment. Section 13(a) (inserted by the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006) allows truth as a defence, but only if the court is satisfied that: (1) the publication is in public interest AND (2) the request to invoke the defence is bona fide. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously — truth alone, without a public interest dimension or bona fide intent, is not sufficient. This is a conditional, not absolute, defence — making Statement 3 factually incorrect.
Statement 4 is CORRECT.This is the established practice of judicial propriety in India. When a Single Judge initiates suo motu contempt proceedings — as Justice Sharma did on May 14, 2026 — natural justice principles (specifically the rule against bias: “nemo judex in causa sua”) require that the proceedings be heard by a different bench. In the present case, after Justice Sharma initiated the proceedings, the matter was assigned to a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja — a separate and stronger (two-judge) bench, ensuring the same judge is not both initiator and adjudicator of the contempt.
Mains Questions
- Caste Census: Measuring Backwardness or Deepening Divides? - May 21, 2026
- A Deep Dive into Contempt Law in India - May 20, 2026
- UAPA vs Liberty: Supreme Court’s New Bail Battle - May 20, 2026
No Comments