Examine the role of the Attorney-General as gatekeeper in criminal contempt proceedings.

Criminal contempt — scandalising a court, prejudicing a pending proceeding, or otherwise obstructing justice [2] — cannot be set in motion by any aggrieved citizen at will. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes the Attorney-General's written consent the entry gate to the Supreme Court [1], making the AG both a shield for the judiciary and a pressure point.

Nature of the gatekeeping power

• Proceedings may be moved by the AG or Solicitor-General, or by any person carrying their written consent, which must accompany the petition; before a High Court, the Advocate-General performs the same role [1].
• Consent is only the first filter — criminal contempt must be heard by a bench of not less than two judges [1].
• Its live salience: an advocate has sought the AG's consent to proceed against the CEC over an alleged breakdown of consensus within the Election Commission, allegations that remain unverified [5].

Merits of the filter

• It screens out frivolous or publicity-driven petitions; the Law Commission's 274th Report (2018) retained criminal contempt partly because such inbuilt safeguards restrain misuse [2].
• It redirects grievances to the appropriate remedy — a writ petition rather than penal action.
• Rarity confirms restraint: roughly 583 criminal contempt cases pending against about 96,993 civil contempt cases [2].
• It protects free speech under Article 19(1)(a) from an offence otherwise abolished in the UK [2][3].

Limitations

• The AG is the government's own law officer appointed under Article 76 [3]; consent sought against functionaries chosen by an executive-dominated Selection Committee, such as the CEC under the 2023 Act [4], will appear political whichever way it goes.
• Section 15 requires consent in writing but no reasons, and provides no appeal against refusal [1].
• The Court's suo motu power under Article 129 bypasses the gate altogether [3], creating uneven application.

The AG's consent therefore balances judicial dignity against vexatious litigation, but discretion without reasons weakens confidence. Requiring a brief recorded justification for grant or refusal, alongside published guidelines, would retain the filter's value while aligning it with the constitutional value of reasoned, accountable public power.