Discuss whether the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 needs reform, referring to the Law Commission's 274th Report and comparative practice.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 sets out how the Supreme Court and High Courts, which are courts of record under Articles 129 and 215, punish contempt [2]. Recent proceedings against an MP and a journalist over remarks on the CJI have revived the question of whether the Act fits a free-speech democracy.

Case for reform

• Vague offence: Section 2(c)(i) penalises anything that "scandalises or lowers the authority" of a court [2]. This is wide enough to cover satire, journalism and political speech, which creates a chilling effect.
• Judge in own cause: The court that has been criticised often starts, hears and decides the case itself. This strains natural justice.
• Unclear line: There is no settled test separating protected fair criticism (Section 5) from scandalising [2]. As a result, different outcomes in similar cases can look selective.

Case against reform: Law Commission's 274th Report (2018)

• It recommended no amendment [1].
• Continuing relevance: 96,993 civil and 583 criminal contempt cases are pending in the High Courts and the Supreme Court [1].
• Constitutional power survives: The powers under Articles 129 and 215 exist independently of the Act, so diluting the Act would change little [1].
• Subordinate courts would be left without a remedy if the definition were narrowed. Keeping a statutory definition also ensures clarity [1].

Comparative practice

• UK: Section 33 of the Crime and Courts Act, 2013 abolished "scandalising the judiciary" [3]. This followed 2012 proceedings against Peter Hain MP, which many saw as an attack on free speech [4]. Conduct that also amounts to another form of contempt can still be punished [3].
• The Law Commission considered the UK an inapt comparison: its last prosecution was in 1931, and other laws there still cover such conduct [1]. Yet India also has defamation law, which offers a similar alternative route.

Way forward

• The Supreme Court should lay down a clear threshold: only speech that creates a real risk to the administration of justice should count as contempt.
• The truth defence under Section 13(b), added in 2006 [2], should be tested on its merits.
• Contempt cases about remarks on the CJI should be assigned outside the CJI's roster chain.
• Governments should obey court orders on time to reduce the civil contempt backlog, which is the bigger threat to judicial authority [1].

The Law Commission rightly treats the civil contempt core of the Act as indispensable. Criminal contempt for "scandalising", however, needs narrowing. Calibrated reform through clear thresholds, fair procedure and timely compliance with orders would let courts rely on public trust rather than fear, balancing Article 19(1)(a) with the rule of law.