|
Defining contempt
24/07/2007 The Star ARTICLES OF
LAW By BHAG SINGH
THE court is a place where offenders are tried for offences alleged to be
committed by them. In other cases where there is a dispute, it is the court
that the antagonists go to to have their dispute adjudicated upon.
Courts are regarded as solemn places where important decisions are made.
Some decisions represent pleasant outcomes, which are welcomed. These
decisions though might be a disappointment to some parties.
However, whatever decision the courts come to, they are the institution for
a systematic resolution of civil disputes and for deciding whether, based on
the evidence presented by the prosecutors against an accused, the offence is
proven.
Recently in an on-going trial, one group turned up with a display of support
for an accused person. On the other hand, a group who supported the
prosecution also responded with signs to show their displeasure.
Signs and messages were displayed by individuals who wanted to show their
sympathy and support for the accused. Others engaged in similar activity to
register their disagreement. Such activity drew attention and comments.
Some said it was wrong and some said it was not. Others said it was sub
judice and some others said it was contempt of court. A reader wrote in to
ask whether such activity is permissible and also whether it is sub judice
or contempt or both, and if so, what are the possible consequences.
The words “sub judice” and “contempt” are not always clearly understood by
the layman. These words are also used interchangeably but in reality they
complement each other in so far as their normal application is concerned.
Sub judice is the status of a matter. Hence, when a matter is pending in
court or when a decision has yet to be made or an appeal is pending, it is
said to be sub judice. Contempt, on the other hand, refers to an activity,
which could attract a reprimand or a punishment.
Thus, a person may be punished for contempt but there is no such thing as
punishment for sub judice. The subject of contempt goes back to the time
when the king was the person who dispensed justice. With the passage of
time, the system of courts evolved and the courts continued to perform this
activity. In many countries today, the courts still carry out their duties
in the name of the king.
The common law definition of contempt of court is an act or commission
calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. This is also
the definition and meaning that applies in our country.
Where persons indulge in activities, whether a show of support or display of
protest in whatever manner in the vicinity of the courts, the question that
needs to be addressed is whether such activity would interfere with the
administration of justice. If it does, it would be contempt; if it does not,
it would not be contempt.
In earlier times, contempt consisted either of some disturbance in or near
the court which affected its business or some violent or insulting reaction
to service of the court’s process. It was contempt to draw one’s sword to
strike a judge, or to assault in open court any of its officers or a juror,
a witness, or an opposing party. Conduct less than an assault was also
contempt if it hindered proceedings in court.
Such acts of contempt are generally rare in present times. However, the
concern today is with statements or content communicated through the easy
availability of communication technology.
The type of contempt that is of concern today is when the content has the
effect of insulting or scandalising the court, or of influencing or
prejudicing the outcome of a trial or matter that is pending. Whatever the
nature of the contempt, the necessity for the law of contempt is summarised
by Lord Morris in Attorney General v Time Newspaper in the words that
follow: “In an ordered community, courts are established for the pacific
settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the
general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of
the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be
subject to unjustifiable interference.
When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those
charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for
their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at
risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority
wanes and is supplanted.”
An analysis of this quote shows that the exercise of contempt powers is
carried out to preserve respect for the court in the broader interest of
society as a whole.
Contempt is one area where neither the offence is statutorily defined nor
the punishment specified. It is within the court’s power to decide whether
what has happened amounts to contempt, applying the established principles.
Similarly, it is within the powers of the court to impose such punishment as
is most appropriate on the contemnor. In doing so, the motive of the
contemnor as well as the damage caused and the effect of the punishment will
no doubt be valid considerations.
In cases where what is said does amount to contempt, it is also within the
powers of the court to decide that the contempt notwithstanding, it will not
exercise its powers to impose punishment for justifiable reasons.
Thus, contempt is committed when a matter is sub judice and an action is
taken which is capable of having an effect on the outcome. |
