Does calling a judge a fool scandalise him? This is a poser by Justice Markandey Katju, a democratic-minded Supreme Court judge. He also offers its answer by recalling the House of Lords decision in the Spycatcher case in 1987.
A former spy, Peter Wright, wrote a book entitled Spycatcher about his days in the British Intelligence Agency MI5. The British government filed an injunction suit to restrain publication of the book on the ground that the material in the book was confidential and was prejudicial to national security. By a 3-2 majority, the House of Lords granted the injunction.
The British Press was outraged. The Daily Mirror, for example, ran a banner headline the next day accompanied by upside down photographs of the majority judges and the caption ‘You Fools’.
Justice Katju also recalled that noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman was in England at that time. He asked Lord Templeman (the Senior Judge in the majority) why no contempt proceedings were initiated. Lord Templeman smiled, and said that judges in England did not take notice of personal insults. Though he believed he was not a fool, others were entitled to their opinion.
This citation by Justice Katju surely offers his perspective about the controversial power of judiciary to initiate contempt proceedings on their subjective satisfaction that either the ‘contemnor’ had scandalised the court or interfered in the administration of justice. Truth is no defense so far.
But, judge supports Parliament’s move to amend the Contempt of Court Act offering ‘truth’ as a defense. Today, the contempt power is not used for vindicating the authority of the judge but only for enabling him to function.
“If, for instance, a person keeps shouting or whistling in my court repeatedly, and does not stop despite my repeated requests, obviously I will have to take some action to enable me to function,” says the Judge.
“After all people are paying taxes from which I get my salary and perks, and I have to justify this salary by deciding their disputes,” he adds. “But if a person calls me a fool, whether inside the court or outside it, I for one would not take action as it does not prevent me from functioning, and I would simply ignore the comment, or else say (like Lord Templeman) that everyone is entitled to his opinion. After all, words break no bones,” he assures.
