Supreme Court Jurisdiction as a Court of Record

Article 129 designates the Supreme Court as a court of record. It declares that the Supreme Court will be a court of record and will possess all the powers associated with such a court, which includes the authority to punish for contempt of itself. This implies two things:

• Court of Record: The judgments, proceedings, and actions of the Supreme Court are documented for enduring memory and testimony. These records are considered to have evidentiary value and cannot be challenged when presented in any court. They are acknowledged as legal precedents and references.
• Power to Punish for Contempt: The Supreme Court is empowered to impose penalties for contempt of court. In this context, it can punish contempt not only of itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals operating across the nation.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over Contempt of Court and Its Powers

• Contempt of court is the power of the court to protect its own honour and respect. The term Contempt of Court is not specifically defined in the Constitution. 
• However, Article 142 (2) states that “subject to the provisions of any law made on this behalf by Parliament,” the Supreme Court shall have comprehensive powers to issue any order pertaining to the punishment of any contempt of itself. 
• The Supreme Court can impose penalties for contempt of court, which may include simple imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine of up to Rs. 2,000, or both. In 1991, the Supreme Court determined that it has the authority to punish for contempt of itself as well as for that of high courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals throughout the country.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The expression ‘contempt of court’ has been defined by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It talks about two types of contempt of court – civil contempt or criminal contempt.

• Civil contempt: It constitutes willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal contempt: It constitutes publication (whether by words- spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
  • It scandalizes or undermines the authority of any court; or 
  • It prejudices or disrupts the due process of any judicial proceeding; or 
  • It interferes or hinders the administration of justice in any other way.

Exclusions Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Supreme Court Jurisdiction

According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the following conduct does not constitute Contempt of Court:

• Innocent publication and distribution of matter.
• Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings.
• Fair criticism of the judicial act.
• Complaints against presiding officers of subordinate courts shall not be contempt- in respect of any statement made by a person in good faith.

Critical Analysis of the Contempt Power

Arguments Against

• Against Civil Liberties: A criminal contempt law clashes with India’s democratic system, which recognises freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right. In this way, the judiciary resembles the executive, in its use of laws to suppress Freedom of Expression under Article 19.
  • Former Supreme Court Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously characterized contempt law as “having a vague and wandering jurisdiction, with uncertain boundaries; contempt law, regardless of public benefit, may inadvertently infringe upon civil liberties.”
• Wide Scope of Contempt: In India, the definition of criminal contempt is notably expansive and readily applicable. Furthermore, the Court’s suo motu powers to initiate such proceedings only serve to complicate matters.

• The Contempt of Courts Act was amended in 2006 to include ‘truth and good faith’ as valid defences for contempt, but the judiciary rarely considers them.

• Contempt Doctrine is Obsolete: Contempt is already practically obsolete in foreign democracies, with jurisdictions recognising it as archaic law. 
  • In 2013, England abolished the offense of “scandalizing the court.”
  • Canada bases its contempt test on real, substantial, and immediate threats to the administration.
  • American courts no longer use the law of contempt in response to comments about judges or legal issues.

Arguments in Support

• High Number of Contempt Cases: A large number of civil and criminal contempt cases are still pending in various High Courts and the Supreme Court demonstrating the contempt of court law’s continuing relevance.
• Affecting the Judiciary’s Reputation: Changing the definition of contempt may reduce the overall impact of the law and reduce people’s respect for courts, their authority, and how they operate. Moreover, repealing this offense in India would create a legislative gap.
• Contempt Power Derived from the Constitution: The Supreme Court and High Courts derive their contempt powers from the Constitution. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, only outlines the procedure for investigating and punishing contempt.

• As a result, removing the offence from the Act has no effect on the superior courts’ inherent constitutional powers to punish anyone for its contempt.
• These powers will persist even without the existence of the 1971 Act.
• Adequate safeguards: The Act includes several safeguards to protect against misuse. For example, the Act contains provisions defining what constitutes contempt and what is not punishable as contempt. 

As recommended by the  Law Commission of India, the provision regarding the contempt of court should be retained. However, the definition of contempt in the Contempt of Court Act should be limited to civil contempt, i.e., willful disobedience of court judgments. Contempt Power should not be used as a means of preventing any and all criticism of an institution. Furthermore, in the age of social media, it is necessary to reconsider the law on criminal contempt.

Power of Judicial Review and Supreme Court Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court has also been conferred with the power of reviewing the constitutionality of legislative enactments as well as executive actions of the Centre, State and other such bodies possessing executive powers. 
• If such enactments, actions or orders are found to be violative of the constitution, they can be declared illegal and unconstitutional. Such powers can then be viewed as null and void.

Additional Powers and Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

In addition to the aforementioned powers, the Supreme Court has various other authorities:

• Resolve Election Dispute of the President and Vice-President: It adjudicates disputes concerning the elections of the President and Vice President. In this context, it has the original, exclusive, and final authority.
• Inquiry into Behaviour of UPSC Members & Chairman: It inquires into the conduct and behaviour of the Chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission on a reference made by the President. If it determines that they are guilty of misconduct, it can recommend their removal to the president. The recommendations made by the Supreme Court in this regard are obligatory for the President to follow.
• Power to review its own Judgements: It has the power to review its own judgement or order. Article 137 specifies that the Supreme Court has the authority to review any judgment or order it has delivered. Thus, it is not obligated to adhere to its previous rulings and may deviate from them in the interest of justice or community welfare.
• Power to withdraw Cases: It has the authority to withdraw cases pending in high courts and resolve them independently. It can also transfer a case or appeal pending before one high court to another high court.
• Supremacy over all other Courts: Its law is binding on all courts in India. Its decrees or orders are enforceable nationwide. All authorities (civil and judicial) across the country must act in support of the Supreme Court.
• Final Interpreter of the Constitution: It serves as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. It can provide the definitive understanding of the spirit and content of the Constitutional provisions as well as the wording used within the Constitution..
• Power to Control all other Adjudicating Authority: It has the power of judicial superintendence and control over all the courts and tribunals functioning in the entire territory of the country. 
  • The Parliament has the capacity to expand the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court concerning matters in the Union list. 
  • Furthermore, its jurisdiction and powers regarding other issues can be broadened through a special agreement between the Center and the states.