The offence of 'scandalising the court' has been abolished in the UK but retained in India. Critically examine whether it is compatible with free speech in a constitutional democracy.

Article 19(2) permits restricting free speech for contempt of court, and Article 129 lets the Supreme Court punish contempt of itself. 'Scandalising the court', borrowed from English law, survives in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [2], though the UK has abolished it [1]. The SC's notice to KPCC office-bearers over a post telling the CJI to "resign now" [3] revives the debate. The offence is defensible in principle but flawed in form.

Arguments for compatibility

• Constitutional sanction: Article 19(2) expressly permits the restriction, and Article 129 makes it an inherent power of the Court.
• Public confidence: courts command neither sword nor purse, so their authority rests on trust. The Bench held that judgments are "open to criticism, however severe", but free speech "cannot become a shield of intimidation" [3].
• Statutory safeguards: Section 5 protects fair criticism of decided cases. Section 13 requires substantial interference and admits truth as a defence. Section 15 needs AG consent for private pleas [2].
• Law Commission (274th Report, 2018): found no amendment necessary. It cited 583 pending criminal contempt cases, India's lack of UK-style alternative laws, and the risk of leaving subordinate courts without a remedy [1].

Arguments against compatibility

• Vagueness: "scandalise" is undefined in the Act [2], so citizens cannot know the line in advance. This has a chilling effect on dissent.
• Judge in its own cause: the institution that was attacked both prosecutes and decides. Here, the post named the CJI himself [3].
• Weak safeguards: Section 12 caps punishment at six months or ₹2,000 [2]. Yet in 2020 the SC held that such limits cannot "stultify or abrogate" Article 129 [4].
• Colonial residue: the UK had no conviction since 1931. It dropped the offence and still punishes such conduct under other laws [1].

So scandalising the court is permitted under Article 19(2), but its vagueness and self-adjudication sit uneasily with free speech. Parliament should define "scandalise" under Entry 77, List I, and tie it to the "substantial interference" test. The SC should voluntarily follow Sections 5, 12 and 13 and prefer bona fide apologies to punishment. As the Bench said, "judicial restraint is not an institutional weakness" [3]. A confident judiciary protects both its independence and Article 19(1)(a).