Section 4 of Contempt of Corts Act

1. 1
Professional Ethics
FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
NOT CONTEMPT
Shrey Kumar
A3211112012
B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
Section A

2. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SERIAL NO. TOPIC
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DUTY TO PROTECT THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
3. AN ANALYSIS OF SECTION 4 OF
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,
1971,
4. CONCLUSION

3. 3
FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
NOT CONTEMPT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Section 4 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads verbatim;
Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt-
Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of
court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.
—Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of
court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.1
As stated above, section 4 deals with the publication of fair and accurate judicial proceedings,
where the term judicial proceedings when read along with section(s) 4 and 7 have a restricted
meaning. “Judicial Proceeding” is a day to day proceeding of the court. The media reports
must represent a fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding and not a one sided picture.
Assuming though not granting that it is capable of a wider construction, it only permits a
publication of "far and accurate" report of a Judicial Proceeding.2
Before we continue further, let us first understand the provisions under Section 7 of The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Section 7 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads verbatim;
3Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera not contempt
except in certain cases.—
1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of
contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding
before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is
to say,—
a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being
in force;
1 Section 4 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
2 Subhash Chand v. S.M. Aggarwal, 1984 Cr Lj 481
3 Section 7 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

4. 4
b) where the court, on grounds of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it,
expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of
information of the description which is published;
c) where the court sits in chambers or in camera for reasons connected with public order
or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those
proceedings;
d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an
issue in the proceedings.
2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall not be
guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of
the whole, or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera,
unless the court has expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public
policy, or for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on
the ground that it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or
invention, or in exercise of any power vested in it.
Now before we dig deeper into the topic, let us understand why does contempt exist and why
does Section 4 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 exist.
India is a democratic country and being a democracy means there are certain Fundamental
Rights granted to every citizen of the nation and there are certain guidelines in the form of
Directive Principles of State Policy to be followed by the law making bodies. These are
loosely based on the doctrine of UDHR or Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The basic Fundamental Right is the Right to Freedom, more specifically Article 19(1)(a)
which is Right to Freedom of speech and expression.4 This gives all citizens a freedom to
express their feelings and to communicate without any restrain. However, “Power tends to
corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.5 And there must exist a legislation to
prevent such abuse of power.
Under sub-clause (2); Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of
any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
4 The Constitution Of India 1949
5 John Dalberg-Acton, 1stBaron Acton

5. 5
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence. 6
6 Article19(2) of The Indian Constitution,1949

6. 6
CHAPTER 2
DUTY TO PROTECT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
It may be noted that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restriction
imposed by, inter alia, a law relating to contempt of court. Section 4 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 is of extreme importance here as it is one of the pillars of the Institute of
Public Interests. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has a sensitive and delicate task of
reconciling two polar conflicting public interests i.e. Protection of fair trial and Preserving
freedom of speech.
In, E.M.S. Namboodaripad v. T.N. Nambiar,7 the Supreme Court has held that while Article
19(1)(a) guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) showed that it was
intended that contempt of court should not be committed in exercising that right.
In, State v. Ram Chander,8 it was held that; Freedom of press, liberty of speech, and action so
far as they do not contravene the law of contempt are to prevail without let or hindrance. But
at the same time the maintenance of dignity of the Courts is one of the cardinal principles of
rule of law in a free democratic country and when the criticism which mav otherwise be
couched in language that appears to be mere criticism results in undermining the dignity of
Courts and course of justice in the land it must be held repugnant and punished. No Court can
look with equanimity on a publication which may have tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice.
Entry 14 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, is “Contempt of Court but not
including contempt of Supreme Court”. It does not extend to the state of Jammu and
Kashmir.
The Supreme Court and the High Court are under constitutional obligation to protect their
judicial system in addition to that of their respective subordinate courts and tribunals. Not
only this but they have to ensure the stream of justice flowing throughout the country through
the channels of the subordinate judiciary, remains unpopulated.9
Article 129 and Article 215 of The Indian Constitution deals with criminal contempt of court.
7 AIR 1970 SC 2015
8 AIR 1959 Punjab 41
9 Professional Ethics Accountancy For Lawyers & Bench Bar Relations by Dr. S.P. Gupta; pg 101 para 3

7. 7
CHAPTER 3
AN ANALYSIS OF SECTION 4 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971,
which states that; Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty
of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any
stage thereof.
There exists a delicate balance of interests of both fair trial and freedom of speech and
expression. The power to punish for contempt of court is the means by which the legal
system of India ensures its protection from;
A. Any publication which is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time
being in force.
B. Any publication which might be against the grounds of public policy or in exercise of
any power vested in it.
C. Any publication which is likely to threaten the security of state and public order.
D. Where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an
issue in the proceedings.10
Ours is a developing multi cultured nation with democracy at its heart. India is often referred
to as the largest democracy in the world. With a population over 1 billion and such a high
pendency of legal cases, the smooth functioning of the legal system is very important. There
is need for fair trial and for the society to know about the issues involved in their cases and
most importantly the effectiveness of the legal system which resolves those issues.
Only way to resolve such disputes and ensure maximum satisfaction of the aggrieved is a fair
trial and publication of inaccurate report of judicial proceeding becomes a hindrance in
achieving such an objective.
We need a balance between fair trial and the publics’ right to information, so publishing a fair
and accurate report of a judicial proceeding is not deemed to be contempt except in certain
cases mentioned under Section 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This is what Section 4
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is trying to achieve.
10 Supra note 3 @pg 1

8. 8
As stated in, Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Lts. V. Securities Exchange Board of India, it
was decreed by the court that open justice permits fair and accurate reports of court
proceedings to be published.11
Also in the case of; Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union (in re:), it was stated that, fair
and accurate reporting of the judgement is essential for the healthy administration of justice.12
In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper, Bombay Ltd.
and Ors.13
The Supreme Court of India had to decide whether there was a need for prevention of
publication of an article on a matter of public interest14 but on an issue which was subjudice?
Justice S. Mukherjee opined that, “as the Issue is not going to affect the, general public or
public life nor any injury is involved, it would be proper and legal, on an appraisal of the
balance of convenience between the risk which will be caused by the publication of the
article and the damage to the fundamental right of freedom of knowledge of the people
concerned and the obligation of Press to keep people informed, that the injunction should not
continue any further.
11 AIR 2012 SC 3829 : (2012) 10 SCC 603: JT 2012 (9) SC 123: (2012) 8 SCALE 541
12 1984 Cr LJ 1061 (Ker.)
13 AIR 1989 SC 190
14 Supra note 3 @ pg 1

9. 9
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
I would conclude this project with the understanding that, fair and accurate report of judicial
proceeding not contempt is one of the most important sections of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
It acts as a wall which distinguishes fair trial without causing any contempt and freedom of
speech and expression of individuals.
Taking an example from a landmark case from the Indian Legal History, K. M. Nanavati v.
State of Maharashtra.15
As we all know this is the most controversial case of Indian Legal History. The last jury trial
in India. Why did this happen? Popular opinion says, the jury were affected by the impartial,
biased and unfair publication of proceedings and various other similar documents.
In this context, Robertson & Nicol have observed that, “the law of contempt serves a valuable
purpose in so far as its operation is confined to placing a temporary embargo on publication
of information which would make a jury more likely to convict a person who is on trial or
shortly, to face trial. Without such a law, the legal system would be forced to adopt the
expensive, and not entirely successful, expedient use in notorious trials in America, where
jurors are quizzed at length as to what they have seen in the press or on TV and are then
sequestered under guard in hotels, denied access to family, newspapers and television
programmes for the duration of the case.16
Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 not only preserves the true nature and purpose
of a trial i.e. Principle of Natural Justice, it also prevents any restriction by the public and
maintains the sanctity of the Fundamental Rights under The Constitution of India, 1949.
This section is fair trial for the aggrieved parties and the publics’ right to know whether the
issues they face are being resolved properly and the competence of our legal justice system.
15 1962 AIR 605 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567
16 Robertson & Nicol,“Media Law’. 3rd edition pg 262-263