NEW
DELHI: “Judge bashing and using derogatory and contemptuous
language against judges has become a favourite pastime of some
people. These statements tend to scandalise and lower the authority
of the courts and cannot be permitted,” the Supreme Court has held.
“For
[the] functioning of a democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense
justice without fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith
and confidence of the people in that institution. That cannot be permitted
to be undermined because that will be against the public interest,”
said a Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice D.K. Jain.
Not
a substitute
The Bench
was giving the judgment while awarding two months imprisonment to a
contemnor Apu Banik for criticising judges and making sweeping remarks
against the judiciary.
It said,
“Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies in the hands of
wanton’ boys. Judge bashing is not and cannot be a substitute for constructive
criticism.”
|
Fair and
temperate criticism of the court, even
if strong, may not be actionable...”
“Attributing
Improper motives. is serious
contempt of which notice... will be taken”
|
Writing
the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said: “There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that anyone who intends to tarnish the image of judiciary should not
be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking the reputation of judges, the ultimate
victim is faith in the institution,
that would be the darkest day for mankind. The importance of judiciary
needs no reiteration. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of democracy.
If people lose faith in justice parted by a court of law, the entire
democratic set-up would crumble down.”
No immunity
Disposing
of an appeal arising out of a Guwahati High Court judgment, the Bench
said, “There is no doubt that the court like any other institution
does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism. No court can claim to be
always right although it does not spare any effort to be right according
to the best of the ability, knowledge and judgment of the judges.
Good
faith needed
“The
right to criticise an opinion of a court, to take issue with it upon
its conclusions as to a legal proposition, or question its conception
of the facts, so long as such criticisms are made in good faith and
are in ordinarily decent and respectful language and are not designed
to willfully or maliciously misrepresent the position of the court cannot
be questioned. .
“While fair and
temperate criticism of the court even if strong, may not be actionable, but
attributing improper motives or tending to bring judges or courts into hatred
and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of
courts is serious contempt of which notice must be and will be taken. Respect is
expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the court is acceptable but
also from those to whom it is repugnant.
Take
heed
“Those who err
in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of court,
administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration
acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril.
“When
criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and
made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect of the judiciary
and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored. Though certain
imputations against the judge may be only libellous against that particular
individual, it may at times amount to contempt also depending upon the
gravity of the allegations,” the Bench added.
|