The court reaffirms that the Act constitutes reasonable restrictions on free speech, aligning with constitutional provisions.
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In a detailed judgment delivered by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, the court upheld the Act's provisions, emphasizing that they do not infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner, Mathews J. Nedumpara, who represented himself, contended that Sections 2(c)(i), 14, 16, and 17(5) of the Act were unconstitutional. He argued that these provisions violate the freedom of speech and expression and the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
The court, however, rejected these arguments, citing the reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2) in relation to contempt of court. It highlighted that these restrictions have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, referencing key judgments such as E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar and Arundhati Roy, In Re. which affirm the Act's validity.
The judgment also addressed the procedural aspects of contempt proceedings under Section 17(5), clarifying that it does not compel self-incrimination but rather offers an opportunity for the contemner to file an affidavit in their defense. The court reiterated that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and do not fall strictly within the ambit of criminal law, thus not triggering Article 20(3).
Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim that Section 16 should apply to judges of superior courts, affirming that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are granted constitutional immunity and are not liable for contempt of their own courts.
In its conclusion, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the necessity of the Contempt of Courts Act to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary, thereby safeguarding the rule of law and ensuring public confidence in the judicial system.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Provisions of the Act do not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as contempt of court constitutes a reasonable restriction on this right.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 2(c)(i), 14, 16, 17(5); Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 19(1)(a), 20(3).
Mathews J.Nedumpara v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2823794
