Abstract
The paper is situated in the domain of media law, focusing on studying the nexus Between Media Dynamics And Contempt Of Court In Legal Narratives. It scrutinizes the freedom of speech and expression afforded to the media, along with its constraints, encompassing contempt of court. The paper delineates the definition of contempt and the governing legislative frameworks. Additionally, it investigates instances of contempt committed by the press and other media through judicial precedents and case studies. The primary aim of this study is to elucidate how social media platforms have emerged as pivotal arenas for judicial accountability regarding criminal contempt, owing to the absence of adequate legislation pertaining to contempt on these platforms. Utilizing secondary data such as press council norms, Supreme Court, and High Court judgments, the research analyzes judicial trends in prosecuting contempt cases. Furthermore, the paper underscores the imperative need for a comprehensive legal framework to harmonize media freedom and the integrity of the court process in the digital era. It advocates for the implementation of recommendations set forth by the 200th Law Commission and proposes empowering subordinates to initiate contempt proceedings.
Keywords: Contempt, Criminal Contempt, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Press, Social Media, Publication, Court, Journalist.
- Introduction
The executive, legislature and judicial are the three official pillars of democracy. While in reality, the media has always been considered the additional fourth pillar in upholding India’s democracy. Media acts as a bridge between the official three pillars ofdemocracy and the public. Media often acts as the voice of the public and helps the citizens know what’s happening in their country. Free and fearless media is a basic requirement for a democratic government to function. The term “media” encompasses a myriad of mass communication channels, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the internet. These platforms serve the purpose of disseminating, receiving, and exchanging information with the general public. The media is expected to work freely provided it has an implicit right under Article 19(1)(a); however, it is restricted by the reasonable restrictions imposed by law, which also includes contempt of court. While it is important to ensure that media is able to enjoy its while acting as a watchdog for the organs of the government, it is also important to balance the independence of the judiciary with it so that the judiciary can keep an eye on the media to ensure that they act within the constitutional restrictions. To make sure that the freedom provided to media is not misused to interfere with justice administration, the judiciary, using its constitutional and statutory power, ensures that restrictions are imposed on media and that such restrictions are reasonable in nature.
In this paper, the author will discuss the basis of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes press freedom and other forms of media, along with its restrictions encompassing contempt of court. The paper will also discuss the definition of contempt and the legislation governing it. The primary focus will be on how social media platforms have become a new arena for identifying contemnors of court, highlighting the lack of proper regulations and standards to define contempt in the digital era. Subsequently, the paper will examine how contempt manifests in the press and other forms of media and where the judiciary draws the line between criticism and contempt while offering recommendations to address legislative inadequacies and regulate these issues effectively.