Case Law 2 - Presentation

CASE LAW 2- CONTEMPT OF
COURT
Re. S Mulgaokar, AIR

1978 SC 717
S Mulgaonkar (1978) is a case that led to a landmark ruling on the subject of
contempt.
Introduction
Facts
Issues
Contents
Arguments
Judgment
Conclusion & Comments
Introduction
“We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at
stake”- Lord Denning
The Contempt of Court concerns the fair administration of justice with the intent to punish acts
hurting the dignity and authority of the Courts. The charge to safeguard the majesty of the
Judiciary in India was accredited to the Judiciary itself by arming it with Contempt jurisdiction.
Contempt of court often referred to simply as “contempt”, is the offence of being disobedient
to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes
or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.
There are broadly two categories of contempt:

1. Being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom.
2. Willfully failing to obey a court order.
Facts of the Case
The case was a contempt of court proceeding initiated by the Supreme Court of India
against the editor of The Indian Express newspaper for publishing an article that made
gross distortions about a judgment of the Supreme Court in the habeas corpus case
during the Emergency. Mulgaonkar, the then editor of The Indian Express refused to
extend an apology to the Court and retract the article on certain contentious judicial
decisions during the emergency, especially the infamous Habeas Corpus Case. The article
also wrongly assumed that Judges of the Supreme Court had drafted a code of judicial
ethics and suggested that they had disowned it.
Whether Mulgaonkar's actions
constitute contempt of court?
Whether an attempt to hold trials in

Issues a newspaper amounts to contempt
of court?
Whether criticism of the Judiciary by

the Press amounts to contempt?
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF S.
MULGAONKAR (Editor of The Indian
Express):
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF COURT’S
CONTEMPT POWERS:
Freedom of the Press: The defense argued
that the articles published in The Indian
Express were within the boundaries of free
speech and press freedom guaranteed under Protection of Judicial Authority: The
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It opposing side, representing the court’s
was claimed that these were fair comments interests, argued that unfounded
on matters of public interest, including the criticism could erode public confidence
functioning of the judiciary.
in the judiciary. It was necessary to
Public Criticism in a Democracy: It was ensure that the authority and dignity
argued that a free and democratic society of the court were preserved.
requires open criticism of institutions,
including the judiciary, as long as it is done
in good faith without malicious intent. A
transparent judiciary is essential for Responsibility of the Press: It was
maintaining public trust. contended that while freedom of the
press is vital, it must not be abused to
No Malicious Intent: The defense undermine the functioning of key
emphasized that the articles in question
were not intended to scandalize the court or
institutions. Inaccurate or unjustified
diminish public confidence in the judiciary allegations against judges can harm
but were meant to raise legitimate the integrity of the judicial system.
concerns.
JUDGMENT
Judges involved:
Chief Justice M.H. Beg, Justice V.R.

Krishna Iyer, and Justice P.S. Kailasam
Judgment
The majority ruling, led by Justices P. Kailasam and Krishna lyer, held
Mulgaonkar not guilty of contempt despite initiating the proceedings
and thus, discharged the contempt notice. Ironically, the same bench
that had initiated the Contempt proceedings held Mulgaonkar not
guilty of contempt of Court. The watershed ruling gave the critical
Mulgaonkar principles which inherently imposed a caution in exercising
the contempt proceedings. Justice Iyer remarked that “the major rule in
the branch of power is the wise economy of use by the Court of its
jurisdiction”.
Justice Krishna Iyer's
Principles:
Wise Use: Contempt power should be used judiciously and
Chief Justice Beg's
seriously only in cases of gross attacks that obstruct justice.
View:
Balance: A balance must be struck between free criticism and
The judiciary is not
maintaining judicial integrity. Minor deviations should be
immune from criticism,
overlooked, but serious, malicious attacks should be addressed.
but distortion or gross
misstatements designed
Public Confidence: Contempt of court aims to protect public
to undermine public
confidence in justice, not the personal reputations of judges.
c
confidence cannot be
ignored.
Media Responsibility: The press should have freedom within
While contempt of court
responsible limits, even when criticizing the court.
should not be used
lightly, it is necessary to
Judicial Resilience: Judges should not be overly sensitive to
address serious and
criticism. If an attack is deemed malicious or offensive, legal
repeated misbehaviors
action should be taken to uphold the rule of law.
that could damage the
judiciary’s
Judicial Ethics: Judges should be able to meet and create a code
integrity.
of judicial ethics, which would enhance their independence and
prestige rather than undermine it.
Case Comments
The judgment emphasized that courts should use contempt powers with restraint
and only when it is absolutely necessary. Justice Krishna Iyer noted that the
judiciary should not be “hypersensitive” to criticism and should bear criticism if it
serves the public interest and is not malicious or defamatory.
This case is significant for establishing a nuanced balance between protecting

judicial authority and safeguarding freedom of expression, emphasizing the
importance of balancing free speech and criticism with the judiciary's need for a fair
and fearless process.
Thank You

Case Law 2 - Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Law 2 - Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Law 2 - Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE LAW 2- CONTEMPT OF

Re. S Mulgaokar, AIR

There are broadly two categories of contempt:

Whether an attempt to hold trials in

Whether criticism of the Judiciary by

Chief Justice M.H. Beg, Justice V.R.

This case is significant for establishing a nuanced balance between protecting

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.