Contempt of Court: Between Reverence and Reform

Contempt of court, as Joseph Moskovitz describes, is "the Proteus of the legal world, assuming an almost infinite diversity of forms." This ancient metaphor captures the elusive nature of an offence that defies precise definition.

- BY DR.M.M.JANAPRIYA

Often irreverently termed a legal thumbscrew, a device once used to crush dissent, it encompasses a wide spectrum of conduct: from overt defiance of judicial orders to subtler acts that may erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

Historically, contempt included any behaviour that tended to bring the authority of the law into disrespect or interfere with legal proceedings. Yet, this traditional understanding is increasingly challenged by the imperative to uphold freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic society.

While I accept that the courtroom must command respect, I resist the notion of it being a sanctified space of worship. Justice must be dispensed not from a pedestal, but from a platform of fairness, transparency, and accountability. A legal system worthy of public trust must be foolproof, not fear-proof.

No human is infallible. As a surgeon, I know that errors can cost lives. When medical negligence occurs, there are mechanisms, however imperfect, for redress. Licences may be revoked, and families may seek compensation. But when a judicial error occurs, particularly at the apex level, the consequences are often irreversible. The aggrieved party may find no recourse, no reversal, and no restitution.