Contempt jurisdiction and reckless attacks on judicial integrity: unsupported allegations against a judge may amount to contempt.
Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court cognizance only where the alleged contempt is itself punishable as contempt under specific Penal Code provisions; the fact that the same publication may also amount to defamation or another offence does not by itself remove contempt jurisdiction. On merits, a publication making unsupported allegations of bribery and dishonesty against a judicial officer, based on hearsay and without verification or contrition, is capable of lowering public confidence in the administration of justice and may constitute contempt rather than protected good-faith comment.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act was barred because the impugned publication also constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Whether the publication was protected by good faith or amounted to contempt of court on the merits.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act was barred because the impugned publication also constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: The bar in section 2(3) applies only where the contempt alleged against a subordinate court is one that is punishable as contempt under specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code. A mere possibility that the same act may also amount to some other offence under the Penal Code, such as defamation, does not exclude the High Court's contempt jurisdiction. The statutory scheme and the summary powers recognised in the criminal procedure provisions showed that only those contempt matters already provided for as contempt-type offences under the Penal Code were meant to be withdrawn from the High Court's cognizance.
Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the High Court was not barred and the objection failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the publication was protected by good faith or amounted to contempt of court on the merits.
Analysis: The article made a direct and serious attack on the integrity and honesty of a judicial officer by repeating allegations of bribery and improper conduct. Even if such allegations could also support a defamation complaint, they were capable of lowering public confidence in the administration of justice and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. The appellant did not substantiate the allegations, admitted that they were based on hearsay, made no adequate attempt to verify them, and showed no regret or contrition. On those facts, bona fide publication was not made out and the conduct amounted to contempt.
Conclusion: The publication constituted contempt of court and the appeal failed on merits.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for contempt were upheld and the challenge to the High Court's order was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act excludes High Court cognizance only where the contempt alleged is itself punishable as contempt under specific Penal Code provisions, and a reckless attack on the integrity of a judicial officer without verification or justification may constitute contempt because it undermines the administration of justice.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
