Abhyudaya Mishra V.
Kunal Kamra
Abhyudaya Mishra v. Kunal Kamra. This refers to a contempt of court
case filed against comedian Kunal Kamra by lawyer Abhyudaya Mishra in the
Supreme Court of India.
The legal profession is considered to be a noble profession and therefore,
it is the duty of society to uphold the integrity and the dignity of the courts. A
certain degree of decorum should be maintained towards the judges and the
courts. Any act to lower the dignity of the court in the eyes of the people should
be condemned. Thereby, to insulate the institution from unfair criticism and
prevent a fall in the judiciary’s reputation in the public eye, the concept of
contempt of court has been instituted. Contempt of court could be largely
defined as willful disobedience to court orders as well as interference with the
administration of justice and overt threats to judges.
The trial for this case started in 2020 and is still going on at the present
day. The concept of showing contempt for the court, on the other hand, has been
brought to the forefront as a result of this case. There have been claims made
that Kunal Kamra, a well-known stand-up comedian, sullied the court's
reputation by undermining the authority of the court via the publication of
tweets on social media. In December 2020, Advocate Abhyudaya Mishra and
other two Law Students filed three contempt petitions against comedian
Kunal Kamra in the Supreme Court. The tweets in issue voiced their
disagreement with the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the suicide
case involving Republic TV's leader, Arnab Goswami. In his approval of the
beginning of contempt proceedings against Kamra, Attorney General KK
Venugopalan stated that the latter's tweets were in poor taste and that the general
public needed to learn that openly insulting the Supreme Court would result in
consequences. Venugopalan also stated that the public needed to learn that
Kamra's tweets were in poor taste. In January 2021, the respondent stated that
the jokes are not reality and do not pretend to be such, and that the idea that
such assertions may undermine the basis of the Supreme Court was an
exaggeration. The respondent also stated that the idea that such assertions may
undermine the basis of the Supreme Court was an exaggeration. The court
allowed the parties to submit the rejoinders they requested in response to the
respondent's reply.
Concept of contempt of court
Contempt of court has not been expressly defined in any Act as such, but
glimpses of the same can be observed under several provisions. Before the
commencement of the Constitution of India, contempt of court was not much
recognised even though some laws did find their existence in its provisions. But
after the Constitution came into force, contempt was made as one of the
restrictions on the Right to Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Therefore, some Articles have contemplated the concept of contempt of court
As per Article 129 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is
empowered, under the capacity of being considered as a court of
record, to punish for any contempt of itself.
By virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Courts, being
declared as a court of record, shall have the power to punish for
contempt of itself.
Further, Article 142(2) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has
been enriched with the power to pass any order punishing the
contempt of itself.
Later the Contempt of court act 1971 was passed. According to the act,
the term contempt has not been expressly defined rather it has explained the
different types of contempt. Under the Act, both the High Courts as well as the
Supreme Court are empowered by the Constitution to punish the person for
contempt of court in accordance with the provisions.
Civil Contempt
According to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, civil contempt
means willful disobedience by a person to any of the court’s orders, judgment,
decree, direction, writ or willful breach of an undertaking given by a person to
the court. This clearly specifies that if any order passed by the court has not
been observed by the concerned person then he will be liable for contempt of
court. Further, if a person performs an act in contravention to the undertaking
given to the court, then also he will be liable under the contempt of court.
Criminal Contempt
As per Section 2(c) of the Act, criminal contempt means the publication
of any act that scandalises the integrity and lowers the authority of the court,
prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings or that
interferes or obstructs the administration of justice. Publication of such an act
can be either in words, spoken or written, in sign language or by visible
representations.
Conclusion
The concept of contempt of court has been time and again pulled up by
the judiciary to safeguard the authority and respect of the courts. It is pertinent
to understand the value that the judiciary holds in the public domain and
discrediting the same will only lead to harm’s way. However, a certain line has
to be created to separate contempt from that of the Fundamental Right of free
speech and expression. While inquiring about a matter, certain degrees have to
be fulfilled in order to enable a court to punish for contempt. The publication
made by the contemnor should be scandalising the courts and the administration
of justice at large. In no way it means that the freedom of speech is to be
curtailed. Therefore, a careful and cautious exercise of contempt power has to
be ensured by the judiciary
