The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 report, recommended against abolishing 'scandalising the court'. The primary rationale is that India has a high volume of contempt cases, and abolishing this specific offence could create a legislative gap. More importantly, it's believed that retaining it helps maintain public respect for the judiciary, which is seen as vital for the rule of law in India. Unlike the UK, where judicial institutions might have a different level of public trust or face different challenges, India's context, with its diverse population and potential for widespread criticism, necessitates this power to protect the judiciary's foundational authority and public faith.

Criminal contempt, especially 'scandalising the court', aims to solve the problem of eroding public faith in the judiciary. It's not about punishing an individual for a specific wrong, but about protecting the institution of justice itself from actions or publications that undermine its dignity and authority in the eyes of the public. If people lose faith in the impartiality or integrity of the courts, they may disregard judgments, making the rule of law fragile. Other laws might address defamation or specific offences, but they don't directly safeguard the judiciary's institutional standing and the public's confidence, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.

The NCERT case (2024) is a prime example of how 'scandalising the court' can be invoked. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a textbook chapter discussing 'Corruption in the Judiciary'. The court's actions—ordering withdrawal of the book and disassociating involved individuals from curriculum work—demonstrate the power to act swiftly against perceived attacks on judicial integrity. However, it also sparked significant debate about judicial overreach and the limits of free speech and academic criticism. Critics argued that such strong actions could chill academic freedom and discourage open discussion about the judiciary, highlighting the ongoing tension between protecting judicial dignity and upholding Article 19(1)(a).

Critics argue that 'scandalising the court' is an archaic concept that unduly restricts freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). They contend that it can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of judges and the judiciary, leading to a chilling effect on public discourse and academic freedom. The vagueness of 'scandalising' also makes it susceptible to arbitrary application. The judiciary can defend it by emphasizing its role in protecting the institution's authority, which is crucial for public trust and the rule of law. They can argue that the law is not meant to shield judges from criticism but to prevent attacks that fundamentally undermine the justice system's credibility. Furthermore, they can point to judicial restraint, the 'broad shoulders' doctrine, and the fact that contempt powers are used sparingly and judiciously, often as a last resort.

• •Criticism: Vague, archaic, stifles free speech, chilling effect on criticism.
• •Judiciary's Defence: Protects institutional integrity, essential for public trust, rule of law, used judiciously, not to shield judges but the system.

The Law Commission of India, in its 2018 report, recommended against abolishing 'scandalising the court'. The primary rationale is that India has a high volume of contempt cases, and abolishing this specific offence could create a legislative gap. More importantly, it's believed that retaining it helps maintain public respect for the judiciary, which is seen as vital for the rule of law in India. Unlike the UK, where judicial institutions might have a different level of public trust or face different challenges, India's context, with its diverse population and potential for widespread criticism, necessitates this power to protect the judiciary's foundational authority and public faith.

Criminal contempt, especially 'scandalising the court', aims to solve the problem of eroding public faith in the judiciary. It's not about punishing an individual for a specific wrong, but about protecting the institution of justice itself from actions or publications that undermine its dignity and authority in the eyes of the public. If people lose faith in the impartiality or integrity of the courts, they may disregard judgments, making the rule of law fragile. Other laws might address defamation or specific offences, but they don't directly safeguard the judiciary's institutional standing and the public's confidence, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.

The NCERT case (2024) is a prime example of how 'scandalising the court' can be invoked. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a textbook chapter discussing 'Corruption in the Judiciary'. The court's actions—ordering withdrawal of the book and disassociating involved individuals from curriculum work—demonstrate the power to act swiftly against perceived attacks on judicial integrity. However, it also sparked significant debate about judicial overreach and the limits of free speech and academic criticism. Critics argued that such strong actions could chill academic freedom and discourage open discussion about the judiciary, highlighting the ongoing tension between protecting judicial dignity and upholding Article 19(1)(a).

Critics argue that 'scandalising the court' is an archaic concept that unduly restricts freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). They contend that it can be used to stifle legitimate criticism of judges and the judiciary, leading to a chilling effect on public discourse and academic freedom. The vagueness of 'scandalising' also makes it susceptible to arbitrary application. The judiciary can defend it by emphasizing its role in protecting the institution's authority, which is crucial for public trust and the rule of law. They can argue that the law is not meant to shield judges from criticism but to prevent attacks that fundamentally undermine the justice system's credibility. Furthermore, they can point to judicial restraint, the 'broad shoulders' doctrine, and the fact that contempt powers are used sparingly and judiciously, often as a last resort.

• •Criticism: Vague, archaic, stifles free speech, chilling effect on criticism.
• •Judiciary's Defence: Protects institutional integrity, essential for public trust, rule of law, used judiciously, not to shield judges but the system.