"The power to punish for 'scandalising the court' sits uneasily with a democracy's commitment to free speech." Critically examine in light of recent contempt proceedings against public figures.

Article 19(2) lets the State restrict speech on the ground of "contempt of court". Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes it criminal contempt to publish anything that "scandalises or lowers the authority" of a court [2]. On 27 October 2026 the Supreme Court ordered MP Sanjay Raut to appear in person over remarks about the CJI [1]. The order raises an old question: does this power protect justice, or does it protect judges from criticism?

Why it sits uneasily with free speech

• Vague standard: the law does not define "scandalise", and the courts have set no clear test that separates harsh criticism from contempt. This has a chilling effect on criticism.
• Wide net over public figures: an advocate, Prashant Bhushan, was convicted for two tweets (2020) [3]. Now an opposition MP and a journalist, Nikhil Wagle, face proceedings [1]. Article 105 privilege does not cover what an MP says outside the House.
• Judge in own cause: the Court is the victim, the prosecutor and the judge. This is sharper when the CJI is the target, because the CJI, as Master of the Roster, decides which Bench hears which case.
• Diluted filter: a private person needs the Attorney General's consent under Section 15 [2]. The suo motu route needs no one's consent [3]. In Raut's case, the Bar association started the proceedings [1].
• Comparative practice: the UK abolished the offence in 2013 [5].

Why the power is defended

• Courts rest on trust: they have no army and no budget of their own. The Law Commission's 274th Report (2018) advised keeping the offence. It noted that the higher courts' contempt power comes from Articles 129 and 215 anyway [5].
• Statutory safeguards: Section 5 protects fair criticism. Section 13(b) allows truth as a defence in the public interest. Punishment is capped at six months or ₹2,000 [2].
• Restraint in practice: Bhushan was fined only ₹1 [4], and Wagle was allowed to appear by video [1].

Assessment: the bigger threat to the courts' dignity is that their orders are disobeyed. The Law Commission cited 96,993 civil contempt cases pending against only 583 criminal ones [5].

So the power has some legitimate use, but in its current wide form it fits poorly with Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court should set a clear test for "scandalising" and have contempt cases about the CJI's remarks heard outside the CJI's own roster chain. It should also apply the truth defence on its merits, and Parliament could narrow Section 2(c)(i). The courts' dignity comes from reasoned judgments that are obeyed, not from punishing critics. That fits the Preamble's promise of liberty of thought and expression.