Contempt of Court in Professional Ethics

The intersection of professional ethics and the legal concept of contempt of court is a critical area of concern for legal practitioners. The principle of contempt of court is pivotal in maintaining the authority and dignity of the judiciary, ensuring that justice is administered without interference or disrespect.

What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or defy the authority of a court. In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to punish for contempt, as stated in the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Act categorises contempt into civil and criminal contempt without defining contempt itself. Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of court orders, while criminal contempt includes acts that scandalise the court or interfere with judicial proceedings. The power to punish for contempt is crucial for upholding the judiciary’s authority and ensuring the enforcement of court orders.

Importance of Concept of Contempt of Court

Contempt of court or disobedience to its rulings, is crucial for upholding the rule of law in India, where the judiciary is seen as the ultimate protector of justice. Punishing contempt is essential to maintain the supremacy of law and ensure that court orders are respected, preventing the undermining of the administration of justice.

As highlighted in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1995), the purpose of punishment for contempt is both corrective and curative, helping individuals enforce their rights. Additionally, there is a public policy element to punishing contempt, as disregarding court orders would erode confidence in the judicial system. Contempt laws are fundamental to preserving the integrity and efficacy of the legal system, particularly in a democracy.

Role of Ethics in the Contempt of Court and Analysis of Criminal Contempt of the Courts

The role of ethics in contempt of court, particularly in cases of criminal contempt, is a complex issue that intertwines legal principles with moral considerations. The concept of criminal contempt is subjective and broad, often encompassing speech that should be protected under constitutional rights like free speech and legitimate criticism. The ambiguity in what constitutes criminal contempt is highlighted by the observation of Fali S. Nariman, who notes that criminal contempt has fallen out of favour in most civilised countries, yet remains prevalent in India.

The legal profession is regarded as noble, with advocates acting as officers of the court. Their adherence to a code of conduct, as outlined in Chapter 2 Part V of the Bar Council of India rules, ensures the profession’s integrity. These rules emphasise the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and ensuring that the actions of advocates do not tarnish its honour and integrity. Chief Justice Marshall emphasised that the aim of legal ethics is to uphold the honour and dignity of the legal profession.

However, the lack of specificity in defining acts that harm the dignity of courts and judges has been criticised. A key question arises regarding whether criticising a judge in a personal capacity is unethical and scandalises the court’s authority. Dushyant Dave, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, differentiated between criticising a judge as a judicial officer and as an individual, suggesting that the latter should not be seen as contemptuous.

Eminent jurists argue that criticism of judges should not be considered a violation of ethics. Former Chief Justice Gajendragadkar cautioned against the frequent and indiscriminate use of the power to punish for contempt, as it could adversely affect the court’s dignity. He emphasised that justice should be open to scrutiny, a fundamental aspect of democracy. Suppressing criticism under the guise of contempt can have a chilling effect on free speech.

The higher judiciary’s extensive power in determining what constitutes criminal contempt has been criticised, especially in cases like that of Advocate Prashant Bhushan. Criticising judges is seen as a necessary right, with Justice Markandey Katju stating that personal insults should not impede a judge’s functioning. Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan argue that the concept of scandalising the court’s authority violates freedom of speech and is arbitrarily broad.

The legal threshold for contempt is that it must substantially interfere with the administration of justice, as outlined in Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Supreme Court has stated that the exercise of criminal contempt powers is not to protect the individual judge but to uphold the majesty of the law and the administration of justice.

Professional Ethics and Advocacy

The legal profession is governed by a set of ethical principles that guide the conduct of lawyers. These principles emphasise the importance of integrity, honesty and respect for the judicial system. In the context of contempt of court, these ethical guidelines underscore the responsibility of legal practitioners to maintain the decorum of the courtroom, to refrain from making derogatory remarks about judges or the judicial process and to avoid actions that could be construed as disrespectful or obstructive.

One of the key ethical considerations for lawyers is the balance between their duty to advocate zealously for their clients and their obligation to uphold the dignity of the court. While aggressive advocacy is often necessary to protect the interests of clients, it must be tempered with respect for the judicial process and the individuals who preside over it.

Challenges and Criticisms

The application of contempt of court laws has been a subject of debate and criticism, particularly concerning the potential conflict with freedom of expression. Critics argue that the broad and somewhat subjective nature of criminal contempt, especially the concept of “scandalising the court,” can be used to stifle legitimate criticism and dissent.

The challenge lies in distinguishing between constructive criticism of the judiciary, which is essential for accountability and transparency and actions that genuinely undermine the authority of the court. Legal professionals must navigate this fine line, ensuring that their commentary on legal matters is informed, and respectful and does not impede the administration of justice.

Ethical Guidelines for Legal Practitioners

To navigate the complexities of contempt of court within the realm of professional ethics, legal practitioners are advised to adhere to the following guidelines:

• Respect for the Judiciary: Always maintain a respectful demeanour towards the court and its officials, both in and out of the courtroom.
• Integrity in Advocacy: Advocate for your clients’ interests with zeal, but not at the expense of honesty, fairness or the integrity of the judicial process.
• Constructive Criticism: When critiquing the judiciary or legal processes, ensure that your comments are informed, respectful and aimed at promoting improvement rather than undermining authority.
• Compliance with Court Orders: Adhere strictly to court orders and directives and advise your clients to do the same, to uphold the rule of law.
• Confidentiality and Privacy: Respect the confidentiality of court proceedings and the privacy of all parties involved, unless disclosure is authorised or required by law.

Conclusion

The role of ethics in contempt of court, particularly criminal contempt, requires a delicate balance between respecting the dignity of the judiciary and safeguarding freedom of expression. The lack of clarity and discretion in defining and applying contempt laws can lead to the suppression of legitimate criticism, which is essential for a vibrant democracy. The focus should perhaps shift towards addressing civil contempt, where the backlog of cases is significantly higher, rather than overly emphasising criminal contempt.