Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech and Contempts of Court Act(1971) -by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

 Freedom of Speech and Contempts of Court Act(1971)

Speech is a gift from God to mankind. Speech is the means by which a human being communicates his or her thoughts, sentiments, and feelings to others. As a result, freedom of expression and expression of thought is a natural right that a living thing being acquires at the time of birth. As a result, it is considered a fundamental right.

Freedom  of Speech and Expression in India

India's Constitutional Act of  1895, considered India's first  constitutional vision, contained the following provisions on "Freedom of Expression and Expression". They are responsible for the abuses they may commit during the exercise of this right when and in  such a manner as may be determined by Parliament." It contains provisions regarding these freedoms." When it comes to  fundamental rights, individual freedom is paramount. India's constitution guarantees "six fundamental rights" in the form of freedom. Here we are only concerned with "freedom of expression and expression". Section 19(1)(a)  provides that “every citizen has the right to expression and freedom of expression”. This freedom plays a key role in shaping "public opinion" on "economic, political and social issues." These freedoms include “dissemination of information” and “freedom to disseminate and exchange ideas”, which help to form opinions and perspectives and conduct discussions on issues of public interest. This freedom also includes the expression of opinions and views on any matter by means such as "oral", "written", "image", "print" or "film".

In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Justice Patanjali Sikri observed that:

 “Freedom of Speech and of the Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular Government, is possible.


Contempt of Courts Act,1971

It is a well-known fact that the 'freedom of expression' guaranteed by the Indian constitution is not 'absolute' and that 'reasonable restrictions' can be imposed on this right for various reasons including 'contempt of court'. According to the Contempt of Court Act 1971, if publications interfere with or tend to interfere in any way  with the administration of justice, they can lead to criminal contempt of courts and can only be prevented by placing “reasonable restrictions” on “the right to freedom of speech and expression”. Everything in this country is inherently limited, whether right or free. Similarly, the freedom of speech and expression  guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution of India was also limited by reasonable measures under Article 19(2) of the same Act. Paragraph 2 of this article states that states have the right to enact any laws imposing restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, and on the same page no one may use this right in violation of their sovereignty and integrity  of security. national. Incitement to public order, defamation and insults, decency or morals against or in relation to the courts or against the State or any other state friendly. The Constitution provides for these reasonable limits to protect other fundamental rights to liberty. The preamble of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to  a  life of dignity and  a fair trial, but the media is busy with their own lawsuits and does not care about future prospects or opinions. by claims of the kind that may be faced by those who have used their actions or their powers.

Vedant Karia


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree