Abstract
Restrictions on freedom of speech are warranted in light of rights of accused persons and that judges are subconsciously influenced by statemen ts made outside the court, especially in the media. Such restrictions, present in Indian law, when contravened amounts to contempt of court. According to the Explanation to section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, any prejudicial statements made prior to filing the charge sheet will not be treated contempt of court i.e. such statements are not 'imminent'. However, the Supreme Court in AK. Gopalan v. Noordeen has held such statements made subsequent to the arrest of a person, itself, will amount to contempt of court. This is the common law position on the meaning of 'imminent' to proceedings for the purpose of discerning whether it amounts to contempt of court. It is the argument of the author that the Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. SEBI has accepted the common law position thereby extending the period covered by section 3. Thus, statements made subsequent to the period in section 3 will amount to contempt under the Act while those prior in time will be contempt under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution.
Recommended Citation
Rao, M Jagannadha
(2013)
"The Law of Contempt in Light of Sahara v. Sebi,"
National Law School of India Review: Vol. 25:
Iss.
1, Article 1.
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol25/iss1/1
