Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, August 27, 2000

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

National | Previous

Contempt law needs relook: Krishna Iyer

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, AUG. 26. Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Supreme Court Judge, has emphasised the urgent need for taking a fresh look at the contempt law.

Mr. Iyer, who presided over a lecture meeting here today, felt that there was a difference between the ``court'' and the ``judge''. The law should seek to protect the court as an institution, while a judge as an individual could be open to criticism.

``Can a judge be held for contempt of his own court?. What happens if the judge comes drunk to his court and demeans the authority of the court? Can he be held for contempt?,'' he asked.

Mr. Iyer was of the view that judges found to be ``arrogant'' and ``misbehaving'' on the Bench should be condemned. He cited the example of a newly-appointed Kerala High Court judge passing remarks in an intemperate language on the competence of a district judge. It was in this context that the contempt law needed a fresh look.

Mr. Iyer spoke on the admissibility of truth in contempt cases. ``If a judge is seen taking bribe from a defendant or molesting a woman, is this admissible and if not why?''.

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, senior advocate, who delivered the Capital Foundation annual lecture on ``Contempt jurisdiction: exploring its limits,'' said the contempt law must strike a delicate balance among individual liberty, right to free speech and the credibility of the courts. ``Today, scandalising the court and attacking the courts and judges and their decision are a worldwide phenomenon,'' he said. Pointing out that the Supreme Court had come under attack on different occasions, Mr. Venugopal said, ``there is a gulf in approaches to these cases. This is because there are no parameters to define contempt''.

Mr. Venugopal said that though the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted to deal with such cases, it was not binding on the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 129.

The admissibility of truth as a ground for defence against contempt needed to be explored. Mr. Venugopal received the annual trophy from Dr. Vinod Sethi.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail


Section  : National
Previous : MPs protest bid to 'suppress' show

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

Copyrights © 2000 The Hindu

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu