Gone are the days when the word contempt sent shivers”*

*Case #266: _Madras HC on Contempt Jurisdiction_ – “Gone are the days when the word contempt sent shivers”*
*Court*: _Madras High Court_
*Source*: _The Hindu – National / Tamil Nadu_
*Act*: _Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 + Art 215 Constitution_

*1. Holding*
*Madras HC observed that contempt power is not to “choke citizens’ voice” and should be used only when administration of justice is obstructed. Court also dealt with criminal contempt for scandalous allegations against judges*

*2. Key Observations from Recent Judgments*
1. *On Misuse of Contempt*:
– _“Contempt power is not a privilege for courts to roam free or a shield to choke citizens’ voice in a free country”_ – _Justice N Seshasayee_
– _“Unless any action or inaction obstructs the course of justice, there is hardly a need to resort to the power of contempt in a democracy”_
– _“Courts cannot and should not be hyper-reactive to every statement hurled at the institution”_

2. *On Criminal Contempt – Scandalous Allegations*:
– _Bench of Justices P Velmurugan & M Jothiraman held litigant T Ashok Surana guilty of criminal contempt_
– _He alleged judges committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”_
– _Court found it amounts to criminal contempt as it scandalises court and interferes with judicial proceedings_
– _Final opportunity given to file unconditional apology, failing which 1-month SI under Sec 12 Contempt Act_

3. *On Lawyers Disrupting Court*:
– _Madurai Bench: Disrupting proceedings to overbear presiding officer cannot be “protected professional conduct”_
– _Appreciated JM Lakshmi Priya for “fearlessness, integrity”_ b43821d21a87e1be

*3. Legal Principles Reiterated*
1. *Purpose of Contempt Law*: _“Keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled”_
2. *Test*: _Contempt jurisdiction reserved for what “brings administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it”_
3. *Art 215*: _HC is Court of Record with power to punish contempt_
4. *Sec 2(c) Contempt Act*: _Criminal contempt includes scandalizing court, prejudicing judicial proceedings_ 5292

*4. Two Approaches Seen*
1. *Restraint Approach*: _Contempt not to suppress free speech. High threshold needed_
2. *Strict Approach*: _Scandalous, repeated allegations against judges = criminal contempt_ b438a308

*5. One-Liner for Exam*
_“Madras HC 2026: Emphasized contempt power must not choke free speech, but scandalous allegations of ‘genocide’ against judges held as criminal contempt u/Sec 2(c) Contempt Act”_

—
*Case #266 Final*: _Madras HC – 2026 – Justice P Velmurugan & M Jothiraman – Contempt of Courts Act 1971 – Free Speech vs Scandalizing Court_

*Master Docket*: _266 Cases_
*Tag*: _#266 Madras HC + Contempt of Court + Art 215 + Sec 2c + Free Speech + Criminal Contempt + Judiciary_

*HJS Note*:
Important for _Constitutional Law_.
Exam Q: _“Discuss scope of contempt power. How to balance with Art 19(1)(a)?”_
Ans: _Contempt protects dignity of court, not ego of judges. Only when it obstructs justice. Criticism in good faith is allowed_

Sir, want me to make a *”Criminal vs Civil Contempt – Chart + Landmark Cases”* for revision?