We are living in the age of science where the internet is the biggest innovation of the technological era. It said that every coin has 2 sides. Same way the internet has 2 sides good and bad. Yes, the dark web is the bad side of the internet, but here we are not talking about it. We are going to explore how social media can influence the public and how your 1 post can hold you liable for lowering our judicial system and authorities. In simple words, we are about to explore the real of the contempt of court and social media’s role in initiating the contempt of court hearing.

In this research paper, we aim to understand the role of social media in contempt of court, understand the freedom of speech, reasonable restriction, and the need for development in this field so that everyone understands the thin lining between expressing their thoughts on social media and doing contempt of court.

What is contempt of court? Is contempt law constitutionality valid? When does our social media expression become liable for the contempt? How can we know that we are doing contempt of court through social media posts?

Keywords- Contempt law, social media, Freedom of speech and expression, Reasonable restriction, Balancing the law and rights.

Introduction

“Dilemmas of Democracy: Navigating Contempt of Court in the Era of Social Media Expression”. As the title of the research paper suggests this paper delves into the intricate dynamics between democratic ideals, free expression¹, and the judiciary’s imperative to uphold order. Examining instances where social media expressions lead to contempt of court² issues, it charts the changing legal terrain, addressing the complexities emerging from the digital age’s influence on democratic principles and judicial decorum.

Contempt of court encompasses deliberate disobedience or disregard for a court’s authority, orders, or dignity. This can manifest through disrespectful behavior, non-compliance with court orders, or any actions disrupting the court’s proper functioning. Contempt may be categorized as civil or criminal³, with civil contempt addressing disobedience of court orders for compliance, and

1. Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India.
2. Section 2(a) of The Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

criminal contempt dealing with actions directly interfering with court proceedings or showing disrespect to the court. Penalties vary and may include fines or imprisonment, contingent on the jurisdiction and the gravity of the offense.

Article 19 of the Indian constitution has conferred the power of free expression. According to the Indian Constitution, every individual has the right to express themselves, their emotions, and thoughts, and it’s their fundamental right. It serves as a pillar of democracy where everyone can express themselves⁴. But it also talks about some reasonable restriction⁵ on the right to maintain public order and safety. Social media is a platform where everyone posts about their thoughts and express themselves. Every day we exercise our right to express ourselves through social media. And it has a great impact on the public. Social media influence the public on a large scale and very rapidly which makes it a weapon that can destroy public peace, order, and safety. As we are living in the age of forwarding, reposting, and X (Twitter) everything spreads rapidly and one post can cause a lot of trouble and chaos.

Research Methodology

Employing a secondary source methodology, the research extensively analyzed existing literature and data in line with research objectives. Rigorous criteria for source inclusion were established, followed by comprehensive searches across databases to identify relevant materials. The selected sources underwent thorough evaluation for reliability, relevance, and methodological soundness. The synthesized information from these secondary sources was systematically organized to construct a coherent narrative addressing the research questions.

History of Contempt of Court Law⁶

The lineage of contempt of court laws in India has its roots in the colonial era, particularly through royal charters and legislative acts that conferred courts with the authority to penalize contemptuous conduct. The concept of contempt of court was deeply ingrained in the British legal system, and its application in India underwent gradual development. Within the contempt of court framework, the designation “court of record” holds significance. These courts, where acts and judicial proceedings are permanently documented, possess inherent powers, including the ability to punish for contempt, aimed at maintaining their dignity and authority.

A pivotal milestone in defining the powers of Indian courts was the Charter of 1726, which accorded the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William (Calcutta) the status of a court of record. This charter vested the court with the power to penalize contemptuous behavior, allowing it to

3. Section 2(b) and Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
4. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
5. Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.
6. Book- Legal Ethics by Dr. Kailash Rai.

uphold order within its proceedings and safeguard its integrity. Contempt of court, within the context of British legal traditions, encompassed acts or behaviors that scandalized the court, interfered with the administration of justice, or showed disrespect to the judiciary’s authority.

Building upon this, the Charter of 1743 extended similar powers to the Mayor’s Court in Madras and the Recorder’s Court in Bombay, designating them as courts of record. These courts, akin to their Calcutta counterpart, were granted the authority to address contemptuous conduct, ensuring the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

The Regulating Act of 1773, a significant legislative enactment, aimed at instituting a more organized system of governance in British India. While it did not explicitly address contempt of court, the act laid the groundwork for subsequent legal developments. It introduced the concept of a Supreme Court in Calcutta, mirroring the powers conferred by the Charter of 1726. The Supreme Court, established in 1774, inherited the authority to penalize contemptuous behavior, thereby upholding the British legal principles. A subsequent legal stride occurred with the Charter of 1833, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts to the Bombay and Madras Presidencies. The power to penalize for contempt was extended to these territories, harmonizing the legal framework across British India.

While these historical landmarks set the context for contempt of court laws in India, the specific legislative articulation addressing contempt materialized in subsequent years. The Contempt of Courts Act 1926 and its successor, the Contempt of Courts Act 1952, provided a comprehensive statutory framework for dealing with contemptuous behavior, covering both civil and criminal contempt.

Article 129 granted power to Supreme Court of India to punish for contempt of court. And article 215 granted power to all the High Courts of India to punish for contempt of itself. So, the contempt of court law is constitutionally valid.

In summary, the historical trajectory of contempt of court laws in India can be retraced through royal charters and legislative acts during the colonial era. The Charters of 1726 and 1743 played pivotal roles in delineating the powers of courts of record, empowering them to penalize contempt and ensuring the preservation of judicial authority. These early legal foundations set the stage for the evolution of contempt laws in India, culminating in the statutory frameworks we have today.

Review of Literature/Law

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971

The Contempt of Court Act 1971⁷holds a pivotal role in India, aiming to preserve the authority and dignity of the judiciary by addressing actions that could impede or diminish the administration

7. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Enacted by Parliament, it extends to the whole India.

of justice. Formulated to harmonize the protection of courts with the preservation of the right to freedom of speech and expression, the Act distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt.

Civil contempt, as delineated in the Act, involves the intentional disobedience of court orders, judgments, or other legal processes. It grants the court the authority to take measures, such as imposing fines or coercive actions, to ensure compliance. In contrast, criminal contempt encompasses acts that scandalize or tend to scandalize the court, diminishing its authority or disrupting judicial proceedings. The Act employs a comprehensive definition of contempt⁸, covering various behaviors to safeguard the reputation of the court.

Section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act furnishes an extensive definition of contempt and empowers the judiciary to initiate contempt proceedings either spontaneously or in response to petitions filed by concerned parties. The Act underscores due process by mandating the issuance of show-cause notices to alleged contemnors, affording them an opportunity to present a defense and clarify their stance.

A notable aspect of the Act is the acknowledgment of truth as a defense in cases of criminal contempt, provided it serves the public interest. This recognition allows individuals to furnish evidence demonstrating the accuracy and public relevance of their statements, striking a balance between the freedom of speech and the imperative to preserve the court’s authority.

The Act also recognizes the significance of fair criticism and the right to report on court proceedings. Constructive criticism, expressed without malicious intent, is generally deemed acceptable, as is the reporting of judicial proceedings to uphold transparency and public awareness.

Penalties for contempt of court under the Act fluctuate based on the nature of the contempt. Civil contempt may result in coercive measures to ensure compliance, while criminal contempt can lead to fines or imprisonment. The severity of the punishment is contingent upon the gravity of the contemptuous act.

Over time, discussions and debates surrounding the Contempt of Court Act have emerged, with calls for amendments to strike a more nuanced balance between protecting the judiciary and ensuring freedom of expression. Nevertheless, it stands as a crucial legal instrument, working to uphold the rule of law and preserve the dignity of the courts in India, guarding against attempts to undermine the administration of justice

Contempt of court encompasses deliberate disobedience or disregard for a court’s authority, orders, or dignity. This can manifest through disrespectful behavior, non-compliance with court orders, or any actions disrupting the court’s proper functioning. Contempt may be categorized as civil or criminal, with civil contempt addressing disobedience of court orders for compliance, and criminal contempt dealing with actions directly interfering with court proceedings or showing disrespect to the court. Penalties vary and may include fines or imprisonment, contingent on the jurisdiction and the gravity of the offense.

Valid Defense⁸–

In instances of contempt of court, individuals facing accusations under the Contempt of Court Act 1971 in India can rely on specific defenses⁹ aimed at reconciling the preservation of judicial dignity with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Here are some common defenses available: ⁴

1. Truth as a Justification: The Contempt of Court Act recognizes truth as a valid defense in cases of criminal contempt if it serves the public interest and good. This permits individuals to present evidence and arguments showing that their statements, even if critical, are factual and essential for public awareness.
2. Fair Criticism: Constructive criticism or fair comment on the merits of a judicial decision or the court’s functioning is generally considered a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of speech. The Act does not seek to suppress genuine and well-founded criticism.
3. Bonafide Error: If the alleged contemptuous act occurred inadvertently or due to a genuine mistake, with no intention to undermine the court’s authority, it can be presented as a defense. However, this defense is effective only if the error is proven to be made in good faith.
4. Publication of Proceedings: Reporting on court proceedings or publishing fair and accurate accounts of judicial proceedings, without intending to scandalize the court, is usually protected. This recognizes the importance of transparency and public awareness in the functioning of the judiciary.
5. No Intention to Contemn: Contempt of court requires a willful act or omission intended to disrespect or obstruct the administration of justice. If an individual can establish that their actions were not intended to show contempt towards the court, it can serve as a defense.

It’s essential to note that defenses in contempt of court cases can be intricate, and the acceptance of these defenses depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Individuals accused of contempt have the right to present their case, produce evidence in their defense, and ensure that proceedings are fair and just. While these defenses offer some protection, it’s crucial to approach matters involving contempt of court with caution, understanding the legal intricacies and the necessity to balance the right to criticize with the imperative of maintaining the court’s authority.

Constitution of India

Enacted in 1950, the Constitution of India serves as the paramount legal instrument governing the nation. It outlines the structure of the government, articulates fundamental rights, and establishes democratic principles. Comprising a preamble and numerous articles, the Constitution delineates the powers of various institutions, upholding the ideals of democracy and secularism. It stands as a testament to India’s dedication to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, guiding the governance of the nation. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of

8. Section 3-7 of The Contempt of Court Act,1971.

speech and expression, underscoring the vital role of open dialogue in a democratic society. This constitutional provision allows individuals to freely articulate their thoughts, opinions, and ideas without the fear of censorship, contributing to the robust democratic framework of the nation.

In the contemporary digital era, the relevance of Article 19 is accentuated by the prevalence of social media. Social platforms serve as dynamic spaces for individuals to exercise their freedom of expression, facilitating the sharing of perspectives, engagement in discussions, and dissemination of information. Nonetheless, the intersection of social media and the freedom of expression introduce complexities and considerations.

While social media empowers diverse voices, it also raises concerns related to misinformation, hate speech, and the potential dissemination of harmful content. Balancing the constitutional right to freedom of expression with the need to mitigate the misuse of social media becomes a nuanced challenge. Regulating social media posts to counter hate speech or false information requires navigating the delicate balance between free expression and societal well-being. Striking this balance involves implementing measures that protect individuals’ rights to express themselves while addressing the negative consequences of certain content on public order, safety, or the rights of others.

Governments and social media platforms have explored various approaches, such as content moderation policies, to tackle these concerns. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that such regulations do not unduly restrict legitimate free expression or become tools for suppressing dissenting voices. In managing this delicate equilibrium, it is essential to interpret and apply Article 19 in a manner that upholds its core principles while acknowledging the evolving nature of communication in the digital age. The focus should be on promoting responsible use of social media, enhancing digital literacy, and establishing transparent and equitable mechanisms for content moderation.

The dynamic interplay between Article 19 and social media highlights the necessity for a nuanced and rights-conscious approach. Preserving the essence of free speech while addressing the challenges posed by the digital landscape is crucial for sustaining a democratic and well-informed society.

Contempt of Court and New Media by Daithi Mac Sithing (SSRN)⁹

Contempt of court via social media presents a modern challenge in democracies, where the right to freedom of expression intersects with the constraints imposed by contempt laws. Social media platforms empower individuals to express opinions and engage in public discourse, yet the rapid dissemination of content raises concerns about potential interference with judicial proceedings.

The predicament lies in navigating the delicate balance between exercising the constitutional right to freedom of expression and avoiding actions that could undermine the authority of the courts or prejudice ongoing legal matters. While criticism of judicial decisions and expressions of dissent

9. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3232814 

are integral to democracy, when conveyed through social media, there is a heightened risk of these expressions being perceived as contemptuous.

Governments and legal systems confront the complex task of regulating social media to prevent contempt while preserving democratic ideals. Striking this balance necessitates the establishment of clear guidelines for online expression, the promotion of digital literacy, and adapting legal frameworks to the evolving nature of communication in the digital age.

In the Indian context, the confluence of contempt of court through social media poses a significant threat to democracy and legal order. The widespread dissemination of potentially contemptuous content can have far-reaching consequences, challenging the sanctity of legal proceedings and impeding the administration of justice. The immediacy and broad reach of social media amplify the impact of such expressions, raising concerns about their potential to influence public opinion and undermine the credibility of the judiciary.

Preserving democratic principles and upholding the integrity of the judiciary in India requires nuanced solutions. It involves not only defining clear parameters for online expression but also addressing the challenges posed by the swift and extensive nature of social media communication. Enhancing digital literacy and ensuring that legal frameworks are adaptive to the unique dynamics of the digital age are crucial steps in mitigating the threat posed by contempt of court through social media to the democratic fabric and legal order in India.

Landmark Judgement

The Prashant Bhushan case¹⁰ deviates from the traditional judicial adage “Dog may bark but the caravan will pass,” illustrating how social media posts can lead to charges of contempt of court. This instance stands out as a clear example of the legal ramifications associated with online expressions. The episode served as a pivotal moment in legal history when Prashant Bhushan shared two tweets. The first criticized the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle, and the second voiced discontent with judicial authorities, alleging their failure to uphold democracy.

Prashant Bhushan contended that his tweets were in the public interest and thus should not be considered contempt of court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding him guilty and imposing a symbolic fine of 1 rupee. The case is noteworthy for reprimanding Prashant Bhushan, a Senior Advocate, and underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for contemptuous conduct by its officers.

This legal episode prompted critical inquiries:

1. When did social media posts become grounds for contempt of court?

10. IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER Versus LNIND 2020 SC 381
11. What laws or guidelines govern such instances?

The case accentuates the imperative need for a clear legal framework to navigate online expression. The absence of well-defined laws underscores the urgency of establishing comprehensive regulations to address contemptuous behavior on social media. The Prashant Bhushan case sheds light on the evolving challenges in balancing freedom of expression with the judiciary’s imperative to uphold its authority.

Challenges and Suggestions

Navigating Challenges in the Intersection of Democracy, Free Expression, Contempt Law, and Social Media: Recommendations for Courts. The confluence of democracy, free expression, contempt law, and social media presents a multifaceted landscape for courts, accentuated by the absence of explicit guidelines addressing contempt on these platforms. This intersection raises several challenges, each demanding thoughtful consideration and innovative solutions.

1. Balancing the Scale of Free Expression and Judicial Dignity:
   • Challenge: The courts must delicately balance the scales of preserving freedom of expression while safeguarding the dignity and authority of the judiciary. The fine line between legitimate criticism and contemptuous behavior is particularly challenging in the expansive realm of social media.

• Suggestion: Develop a nuanced approach that acknowledges the right to critique judicial decisions while establishing clear boundaries to prevent unwarranted attacks on the judiciary. Encourage responsible expression without stifling dissent, fostering an environment where democratic values flourish.

2. Mitigating the Influence of Social Media on Judicial Proceedings:
   • Challenge: The rapid dissemination of information through social media platforms poses a potential threat to influencing public opinion and prejudicing ongoing judicial proceedings.
   • Suggestion: Implement measures to minimize the impact of social media on legal matters, such as restricting the reporting of certain details. Additionally, expedite the adjudication of contempt cases arising from social media to mitigate potential harm to judicial proceedings.
3. Addressing the Legal Void in Social Media Contempt Cases:
   • Challenge: The absence of specific laws and guidelines for contemptuous behavior on social media leaves the courts with interpretative challenges in handling such cases.

• Suggestion: Enact legislation or formulate clear guidelines explicitly addressing contempt on social media platforms. A well-structured framework would provide courts with the necessary tools to evaluate online expressions and define the boundaries for contemptuous conduct.

4. Defining Contemptuous Behavior in the Digital Sphere:

– Challenge: Determining what qualifies as contemptuous behavior on social media is subjective, given the diverse nature of online expressions.

• Suggestion: Develop a comprehensive definition of contemptuous behavior on social media, accounting for context, intent, and impact. This definition should be adaptable, providing clarity in navigating the nuances of online expression.

5. Safeguarding Judicial Independence:

• Challenge: Upholding judicial independence while addressing contempt cases related to social media is paramount. Striking a balance between accountability and judicial autonomy is essential.
• Suggestion: Reinforce judicial independence by ensuring that contempt proceedings are fair, transparent, and adherent to established legal principles. It is crucial to underscore that criticism, even on social media, should not compromise the autonomy of the judiciary.

6. Promoting Social Media Literacy:

• Challenge: Limited awareness and understanding of the legal consequences of online expressions contribute to contemptuous behavior on social media.
• Suggestion: Launch educational campaigns to enhance social media literacy, enlightening the public about the boundaries of free expression and the legal ramifications of contemptuous posts. Promoting responsible online behavior is integral to mitigating the risks associated with contempt on social media.

7. Ensuring Swift Adjudication and Consistency in Precedents:

• Challenge: Delays in adjudicating contempt cases related to social media and inconsistent precedents contribute to uncertainty.
• Suggestion: Streamline the legal process for handling contempt cases arising from social media, ensuring expeditious resolution. Establish consistent precedents based on legal principles to provide clarity and predictability in future cases.

A robust legal framework, coupled with educational initiatives and a delicate balance between freedom of expression and judicial authority, is essential to address these challenges and uphold the democratic principles that form the foundation of legal systems.

Conclusion

The conundrum involving democracy, social media, and contempt of court underscores the essential requirement for reform. Crafting nuanced guidelines is crucial to balance free expression and upholding judicial dignity. Reform becomes imperative to adapt legal frameworks to the dynamic digital landscape, safeguarding democracy’s vitality while maintaining the sanctity of the judiciary.

Aashita Kumbhre

ILS Law College, Pune.