<p>Senior journalists N Ram and Arun Shourie, along with activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan have approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Contempt of Courts Act, claiming that it violates the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and equality.</p>.<p>In a joint writ petition, they claimed that Section 2(c)(i) of the Act is unconstitutional as it is incompatible with preambular values and basic features of the Constitution. They contended that it violated Article 19(1)(a) and was unconstitutionally and incurably vague, besides being manifestly arbitrary. </p>.<p>Section 2(c)(i) of the Act states that criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation) of any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.</p>.<p>The petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal on behalf of the three claimed that the sub-section had an extremely wide import and was incapable of objective interpretation and even-handed application. The provision is likely to be used to "stifle criticism and freely discuss the acts of the judiciary".</p>.<p>"The overboard language of the sub-section leaves open the possibility of it being used to punish speech which does not interfere with judicial proceedings or the administration of justice, merely because the speech may sway the sentiments of the public against the court," their plea said.</p>.<p>The petitioners also claimed the provision criminalised speech in the absence of proximate and tangible harm. "By criminalising contempt of court in sweeping and absolute terms, the sub-section raises a prior restraint on speech on matters of public and political importance," they said.</p>.<p>The language of a tendency of scandalising failed the test of proximate cause or "spark in a powder keg". The dissenting and critical views almost always have such a tendency and has the effect of tangling speech of this kind as a result, they pointed out.</p>.<p>Among other grounds, they said the provision had constitutionally chilling effect, failed the test of proportionality and the offence was rooted in colonial assumptions and objects with no regard to fundamental rights in a democracy, including freedom of speech, equality and equal treatment.</p>.<p>The petitioners themselves have faced contempt of court at different points of time. Bhushan was issued a contempt notice last month for two of his tweets. He is facing a similar proceedings in the Supreme Court for a 2009 interview accusing former CJIs of corruption.</p>
<p>Senior journalists N Ram and Arun Shourie, along with activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan have approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Contempt of Courts Act, claiming that it violates the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and equality.</p>.<p>In a joint writ petition, they claimed that Section 2(c)(i) of the Act is unconstitutional as it is incompatible with preambular values and basic features of the Constitution. They contended that it violated Article 19(1)(a) and was unconstitutionally and incurably vague, besides being manifestly arbitrary. </p>.<p>Section 2(c)(i) of the Act states that criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation) of any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.</p>.<p>The petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal on behalf of the three claimed that the sub-section had an extremely wide import and was incapable of objective interpretation and even-handed application. The provision is likely to be used to "stifle criticism and freely discuss the acts of the judiciary".</p>.<p>"The overboard language of the sub-section leaves open the possibility of it being used to punish speech which does not interfere with judicial proceedings or the administration of justice, merely because the speech may sway the sentiments of the public against the court," their plea said.</p>.<p>The petitioners also claimed the provision criminalised speech in the absence of proximate and tangible harm. "By criminalising contempt of court in sweeping and absolute terms, the sub-section raises a prior restraint on speech on matters of public and political importance," they said.</p>.<p>The language of a tendency of scandalising failed the test of proximate cause or "spark in a powder keg". The dissenting and critical views almost always have such a tendency and has the effect of tangling speech of this kind as a result, they pointed out.</p>.<p>Among other grounds, they said the provision had constitutionally chilling effect, failed the test of proportionality and the offence was rooted in colonial assumptions and objects with no regard to fundamental rights in a democracy, including freedom of speech, equality and equal treatment.</p>.<p>The petitioners themselves have faced contempt of court at different points of time. Bhushan was issued a contempt notice last month for two of his tweets. He is facing a similar proceedings in the Supreme Court for a 2009 interview accusing former CJIs of corruption.</p>
