Lacunas In The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 In The Context Of Media Trial

10th March, 2023 - 10:45 am Categories: Media & Entertainment Law 0 Comments

Introduction

Media is the fourth pillar of a functional democratic state, after the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The media may take many different forms, including traditional print publications, broadcast television news, online newspapers, social networking sites, and so on. There are media sources present on social media despite the fact that they do not fit the traditional definition of media. Furthermore, the media has far-reaching impact on individuals since it broadcasts various types of news: from politics and celebrity news to court and worldwide news. The article’s purview is limited to traditional forms of media and does not extend to other forms of online communication. This is crucial due to the fact that the media landscape has changed drastically since the Act’s inception. Some minor changes were made to the Act in 1976 and again in 2006. Although media trials are not new, the latest one involving Rhea in the Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide case was particularly cruel and distressing for all those concerned. The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 does give some foundation for the necessary oversight and management of such horrific cases. However, the article aims to investigate whether or not these limitations are sufficient and whether or not they are being applied properly.

Media Trial and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: A Legal Perspective

Limits imposed in the framework of the Act do not stifle Media freedom. We learn instead that there is no such thing as complete liberty as a result of these limitations. The Act itself recognises two types of contempt: civil and criminal. As far as the Media is concerned, Civil Contempt as defined under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as “wilful disobedience to the order, decree, direction, any judgment or writ of the Court by any person or wilfully breach of undertakings by a person given to a Court, is irrelevant”[i]. And, Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines ‘criminal contempt’ as “publication of anything – whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever – which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court”[ii]. The limitation on media freedom is caused by this criminal contempt. However, sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 (as amended in 2006) of the Act provide guidance on what does not constitute contempt. While these sections define contempt, they do so in ambiguous language. Such ambiguity vests substantial discretionary authority in the courts to determine the circumstances under which contempt actions may be instituted. In a marginal note, sections 4 and 5 use the word “fair,” without providing any more clarification. Although the wording of Section 3(3) suggests a presumption of guilt, it is important to note that this presumption is grounded on the assumption that a publication under Section 3 was made in good faith. NN Choudhuri v. Bela Bala Devi[iii] made it clear that the accused shall be given the benefit of the doubt in cases of contempt. This is due to the fact that, while instances of criminal contempt are often considered quasi-criminal, the burden of evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, the courts have the last say on what constitutes contempt and what does not, which may lead to some interesting outcomes. Judges have the discretion to utilise this authority as they see fit, which may lead to contentious outcomes. The editors of the Indian Express and the Times of India, got justice for their criticism of the ADM Jabalpur case, by the decisions of In Re: Mulgaokar[iv] and In Re: Shri Shyam[v]. In that case the High Court initiated contempt proceedings because an article included offensive words about a particular High Court verdict, but the Supreme Court decreased the sentence of the accused. Everyone would have seen the media trial of Sushant Singh Rajput. This is not the first media trial, nor will it be the last. Other high-profile cases that were tried in the media include the Jessica Lal murder case, the Noida double murder case, the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder case, and so on.

The media has a tendency to manipulate public opinion via these trials by focusing on one side of the issue and making it appear as if one group of individuals are the criminals. The problem here is that the media often presents a slanted account of events and, based on that account, makes a value judgement about whether or not the accused is guilty. Sec. 3 of the Act aims to control such media trials by making it an offence to publish information about a case that is now pending before the Court. The idea underlying Section 3 is that when the public is influenced by the media’s coverage of a case, their respect for the judicial system suffers and a climate of disdain develops. If the media is to fulfil its constitutional role, it must be free, but in order to do so, it must also comply with Art. 19(2) without compromising the freedom guaranteed to it in Art. 19(1)(a). Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 of the Act all help clarify the bounds beyond which the media and the courts may not intrude.

Conclusion

As per Article 129[vi] and Article 215[vii] of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively are responsible for monitoring acts of Contempt of Court. This indicates that the Courts have certain powers under the Constitution, independently of the Act. It is necessary to redefine the conditions under which contempt proceedings may be brought so that they may be brought more for the benefit of the trial or for the interest of justice. Additionally, the Act has to be changed to expressly make the difference between judges being scorned and the Courts being scandalised. The remedy in the latter scenario is defamation rather than filing a contempt lawsuit. The Act’s ambiguous language must be clarified as soon as possible to provide precise guidelines on what counts as contempt of court. Another thing to keep in mind is that publications made during the pre-trial phase are not subject to contempt actions. The media has mostly taken advantage of this. The thing here is not only media trial alone, because of the media’s increased focus on TRP and journalism’s transformation into a means of generating money. The media nowadays performs all of the functions of the court, including investigating a specific case, interviewing those involved, analysing the evidence, and even identifying the “real” offender. For the media, there has to be a unique set of guidelines in the form of a code of conduct, and violations should result in penalties.

Author: Vaishnavi Tripathi,  A Student at Kirit P Mehta School of Law, NMIMS, Mumbai,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

[i] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, § 2(a), No. 70, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).

[ii] The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, § 2(c), No. 70, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).

[iii] NN Choudhuri v. Bela Bala Devi, AIR 1952 Cal 702.

[iv] In Re: S. Mulgaokar, (1978) 3 SCC 339.

[v] In Re: Shri Sham Lal, (1978) 2 SCC 479.

[vi]INDIA CONST. art. 129.

[vii]INDIA CONST. art. 215.