Introduction
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as “contempt”, is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defied the authority, justice, and dignity of the court[1].
What is contempt of court?
There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order[2]. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligation of a juror, or to provide certain information can also constitute contempt of court[3]. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions[4].
How do courts use it?
When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobey or been disrespectful of the court’s authority, called “found” or “held” in contempt. That is the judge’s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court’s normal process.
A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court. Either showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior. Or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. This makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.
How is contempt of court relevant today?
India is a democratic country that has many hidden fallacies in its judiciary. These hidden fallacies have been dragg on since the British era. It is a constant reminder of the dark times when ‘status’ and ‘class’ would feed the egos. These provisions completely negate the sentiments of a human being and continues to praise the high. The British era ended in 1947 and we got our Constitution. The constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights to all its people. It have been in violation with such contempt provisions left with us by the British.
The 21st century, India witnessed a superficial courtroom etiquette debate. It question the use of provisions inherit from the British Colonial Rule.
Case Laws-
In the recent Rajasthan HC initiative, the full court issue a public notice to put an end to the archaic practice of addressing judges as “My Lord” and “Your Lordship”.[5] Accentuating the “mandate of equality enshrine in the Constitution”. The High Court ask all lawyers to desist from the deranging practice.[6] What is important to note here is that this is not the first time such an opinion has come forward.
The Supreme Court of India had made similar remarks in the past. In 2014, hearing a PIL seeking prohibition on the use of such terms to address judges, the Supreme Court clarified that there was no such mandate to address them in a particular manner.[7] The bench was comfortable in being “Sir” or “Shriman” as long as they are being give the due recognition and respect. The bench consisting of Justice S.A. Bobde and H.L. Dattu, however, rejected the plea to issue a directive order on how to address the court. They thought that the court cannot hold a person in contempt for merely following a force of habit. One has the freedom to choose how to frame a statement.
Bar Council-
In 2006, the Bar Council of India, empowered under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 took note that one would be free to address judges as they wish, keeping in mind the value of the judicial office.[8] They will not be bound by the relics of our colonial past.
Despite repeated provisions, one continues to witness the use of such addresses in courts and judgments. One can safely infer that lawyers continue to massage the judges’ egos in fear of insulting them, producing a bias in their minds, which could in turn hamper the case.
So what to do?
If one glances at the intricacies of how the said provision works, they will realize that a judge can hold any person in contempt, whether it be in or outside of the courtroom. Similar to how bias can be created in the judge’s mind if one does not conventionally address them. One needs to realize how big of an impact this has on the legal system of this country, no matter how trifle this problem may seem.
Legal luminaries who have valid criticism against the judiciary are not given an open mike opportunity, depriving millions of the true picture in a democratic country. In a country where Fundamental Rights are keep at the realm of affairs, the judiciary has manage to create an unsuspect terror in the minds of people. From holding people in contempt for disregarding the opinion of the judiciary to throwing the case away in the opposition’s favor because of ego clashes over how they must be addressed.
References
[1] Oxford dictionary, definition of contempt of court.
[2] Legal Dictionary.law.com.
[3] West encyclopedia of Law.
[4] Bray, Samuel (2014). “The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment”. Duke Law Journal.
[5]Indian Express, “Explained why Rajasthan high court judges don’t want to called my lord”.
[6] Id.
[7] Williams, D. G. T. “The BBC and Contempt of Court.” The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, 1980.
[8] Id.
0 Comments