As the Supreme Court continues to assert its constitutional mandate, it faces fresh challenges in preserving its institutional integrity in an increasingly charged political landscape
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted to preserve the sanctity and integrity of the judicial system. It comprises 24 sections that clearly define what constitutes contempt of court and what does not.
Contempt of court can be classified into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to the wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or the wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court.
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves the publication — whether spoken, written, expressed through signs, or by any other visual representation — of any matter, or the commission of any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; prejudices, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any manner.
The term “wilful” implies a voluntary and intentional act carried out with a specific intent to either disobey or disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action performed with bad motive or evil intent, as clarified in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. vs Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105. According to Article 129 of the Constitution of India, “The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” Although contempt can be categorised as either civil or criminal, contempt proceedings are considered sui generis — meaning they do not strictly follow either civil or criminal procedure.
A High Court, being a court of record, exercises inherent jurisdiction in contempt matters. The procedure it adopts is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or by the Indian Evidence Act (now the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Subject to the limits on punishment imposed by the Contempt of Courts Act, the court may follow any procedure and pass any order it deems appropriate (Ch. Shyam Sunder vs Daw Dayal Khanna, AIR 1956 All 79). The distinction between criminal and civil contempt is fundamental.
Criminal contempt targets actions that undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary, while civil contempt involves failure to comply with court orders. Recent Developments: Political Comments and Judicial Authority Recently, BJP Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey made disparaging remarks against the sitting Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which amount to both criminal and civil contempt. On April 19, 2025, Dubey publicly criticised the Supreme Court’s observations on the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
On April 17, 2025, the Court had noted that properties declared as Waqf, including “Waqf by user”, should not be denotified and questioned whether Muslims were allowed to be part of Hindu religious trusts.
In response, Dubey posted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) that “Parliament should be closed if the Supreme Court makes laws,” and questioned the Court’s authority to set deadlines for presidential action on bills. He further accused the Chief Justice of “inciting civil war” and stated that the Supreme Court was overstepping its bounds. Speaking to news agency ANI, he also accused the judiciary of disregarding Parliament’s lawmaking mandate.Dinesh Sharma, former Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, added that “no one can challenge the President,” asserting the President’s supremacy. Similarly, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, on April 22, 2025, criticised the Supreme Court’s directive, saying the judiciary cannot act as a “Super Parliament” and encroach upon executive functions.
These statements come amidst increasing tensions between the judiciary and political figures. The judiciary has consistently emphasised that legislative actions must respect the basic structure of the Constitution.
In high — profile cases like the electoral bonds case, the Supreme Court has asserted its constitutional oversight, striking down provisions it found unconstitutional.
Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, contempt is punishable with simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine up to two thousand rupees, or both. The Supreme Court has historically enforced this strictly, even against prominent individuals such as Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former High Court Judge Justice CS Karnan. On June 29, 2020, Bhushan tweeted critically about then — CJI SA Bobde, including a photograph of him on a motorcycle. A petition was filed against him and Twitter India on July 2, 2020, alleging that the tweets undermined public confidence in the judiciary. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance and initiated contempt proceedings. On August 31, 2020, Bhushan was fined `1. He paid the fine before the 15 September deadline but filed a review petition challenging the judgment.
In another instance, Justice CS Karnan had been making hostile and defamatory remarks against senior judges since early 2017. He was eventually arrested in Tamil Nadu and jailed in Kolkata. His bail plea was rejected by the Supreme Court, demonstrating the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach to contempt.
In light of the Supreme Court’s firm stance on preserving its dignity and constitutional role, the recent outbursts by political leaders are likely to be taken seriously.
As history shows, the Court does not hesitate to act against those — even influential individuals — who seek to undermine its authority. It remains to be seen how the law will unfold in the current context, but the precedent for accountability has been well established.
(The writer is a lawyer and a consultant. Views are personal)