The document discusses the balancing of free speech rights and preserving confidence in the judicial system under the law of contempt. It notes that while the judiciary is open to criticism as part of democratic principles, serious allegations against an individual judge could undermine public trust. The Supreme Court has held that criticism of judicial acts must be respectful and avoid attributing motives, as judgments are public documents that can be commented on and critiqued in a dignified manner.

1. Bhargav Dangar
Roll No. 20
Media Law

2.  The Law of contempt requires the balancing of two vital but often
competing democratic values.
 The right to free speech &
 The necessity to preserve public confidence in judicial system.
 The right of criticism is a vital ingredient of any democratic system
& is an integral part of the
article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

3.  The Judiciary, like any other institution does
not enjoy immunity from criticism.
 The right to criticise judgments has been
recognised and reiterated on a number of
occasions.

4.  On one side is the democratic right to free speech, expression &
criticism; on other is the necessity to shield the judicial system
from indignity.
 The serious allegations made against in individual judge would
undermine public confidence in the system.
 Till recently, neither truth nor good faith were defenses against
the law of contempt in India.

5.  In this case the Supreme Court held that the criticism of any judicial
act must always be dignified and that motives must never be
attributed.
 The Judgments of court are public documents & can be commented
upon analysed & criticised, but in a dignified manner.