'Criminal Contempt A Reasonable Restriction On Free Speech' : Centre Defends Section 2(c)(i) of Contempt Of Courts Act Before Karnataka High Court

The affidavit also states that the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19 (2) cannot be cast in stone or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. The words scandalise or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court cannot be examined in isolation.

Section 2(c)(i) defines criminal contempt as publication or doing of any act that "scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court".

The petitioners have challenged the provision on the ground that it violates Article 19 and 14 of the Constitution, as "incurably vague and manifestly arbitrary".

The statement of objection further states that "Independence of judiciary is an important constituent of a democracy. When the criticism has the tendency of lowering down the authority of the judge and even obstructing administration of justice, the court has the power to punish any such act which tends to demean the value of judiciary under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971".

The Government has also said that "It is not possible for the legislature to foresee in advance all possible acts/omission that would constitute criminal contempt and the acts/omission constituting the criminal contempt has to be understood in the light of facts of each case."

The Centre dubs the petitioners' argument that the offence of scandalising the court is rooted in colonial assumptions as a figment of imagination . Further, "It is submitted that freedom of speech and expression will always prevail except where contempt is manifest, mischievous or substantial."

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj today adjourned the matter for further hearing to June 28.