CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COMEDIANS

Profile of the Author: Iffla Firdous is a 4th Year Law student from the School of Law, University of Kashmir.

INTRODUCTION

Comedy is a different and varied kind of genre that envelops a broad scope of structures. Going from a circumstance, sketch, stand-up, parody to a melodic, and much more, the variety of comic formats can manage many settings where the particulars of regular day-to-day existence are experienced and reflected upon social frameworks are renegotiated. It has created a ubiquity of heap stages, which have empowered another age of online media stars across various classes. Looking all the more carefully at Indian comedians, especially the individuals who have used advanced media as a way to feature their substance, they are picking up prevalence at a container Indian level; the comical inclination and confinement of what is a worldwide arrangement have an allure inside and outside of India.

It is the consecrated purpose of the comedian to make people snicker and giggle. The dispute here is that the more significant part of comic articulation is an exceptionally fundamental discourse on life. Society has since quite a while conceded funny voices the option to reflect frailties. As a state of section into this world, what was quickly striking was when entertaining becomes hostile and the progressing banter around control, the right to speak freely of discourse, and the heap wellsprings of offence and errors which at ordinarily has had genuine repercussions. Lately, comedians have further developed their material, extending the expansiveness of themes past networks and territories to incorporate issues such as body shaming, casteism, poverty, mental health stigma, nepotism, politics, and much more.

Then again, in handling troublesome and no-go zones, jokesters frequently risk going excessively far. We live in a time where we make the most of our satire bound with a scramble of cumbersomeness and strain, and preferably, it accompanies a different side of the offence. According to millennial Indians, the intensity of such parody's power is imagined as a statement that the traditional media has not been capable, at any rate, according to millennial Indians, to push forward wholly. Humour is more than making individuals snicker, it is at the centre of a nation's advancement in uncovering cultural discontent or testing the ordinary practices that we establish every day to keep up the fiction of reasonableness and vote based system, and this is an inclination that has hugely resounded with millennial Indians.

IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EX[PRESSION ABSOLUTE?

While delivering their content, the comedians need to ensure they don't misinterpret the concept of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute in India, and there are as many as eight restrictions on the Freedom of speech and expression. These restrictions are there to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Mocking these below-given issues is considered sensitive and demand stringent action against the offenders.

1. Security of the state 2. Friendly relations with foreign countries 3. Public Order 4. Decency or morality 5. Contempt of Court 6. Defamation 7. Incitement to offence 8. Sovereignty and integrity of India.

Recently, five petitioners filed a petition to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against a comedian after he criticized and mockingly called the Supreme Court of India as the "most supreme joke in the country." Criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against the stand-up comedian after the Attorney General gave his consent, as is necessary under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to obtain approval of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to initiate contempt proceedings against an individual. The comedian's act was considered a "manifest attempt to lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India."

CONTEMPT OF COURT

What does the term Contempt of Court mean?

Contempt of Court as an idea seeks to shield the legal establishments from persuaded attacks and ridiculous analysis. It is perceived as an offence of rebellion or insolence towards the judicial institutions to lower their position by challenging such institutions' authority and dignity.

The law related to Contempt of Courts:

Under Article 129 of the Indian Constitution, "The Supreme Court of India shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."

Prevalent and Superior courts of record have the forces to rebuff contempts identifying with those courts' adjudicators and the procedures in that. The chief point is to secure the poise of the Court and administration of justice and equity.

Types of Contempt of Court:

Contempt of Court is of two types in India:

I) Civil Contempt

II) Criminal Contempt

Civil contempt: Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has been defined as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or another process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Criminal contempt: Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

i) Scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or

iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

The ingredient to constitute the contempt of Court where the individual “scandalizes” or “tends to scandalize,” or “lowers” or “tends to lower the authority” of any court is found to be present in the remarks made by the comedian. Scandalising the judiciary may be reflected in different manners; however, in substance, it is an assault on either the judge/s or the Court in general. With/without reference to a specific case, it projects unjustifiable and slanderous defamations upon the judges' character or capacity. To constitute an act as contempt, visible, and actual interference in justice administration is not mandatory. For the general masses, such conduct can produce doubt in everyday citizens' minds, creating distrust among citizens for the judiciary.

Levying allegations or remarks against the judiciary and making an indecent assault on judges' lead are ordinarily viewed as issues that attack the bench. This arrangement reasons that courts must be shielded from partisan assaults that bring down its power, criticize its public picture, and cause the general population to lose confidence in its unprejudiced nature.

The Supreme Court made it understood, on account of Arundhati Roy case, that analysis which subverts the nobility of the Court can't be supposed to be rational analysis and doesn't fall under the ambit of speaking freely of discourse and articulation as is ensured by Article 19 (1)(a) of Constitution of India as Freedom of speech and expression. Consequently, an indictment of people for Scandalizing the Court isn't denied by established right under Article 19 (1)(a). Anyone held guilty of contempt shall be punished with imprisonment up to 6 months and/or a fine of up to ₹ 2000.

CONCLUSION

Comedians are currently viewed as going too far into unsatisfactory quality eventually. Their apparatus is the joke, and if that obtuse contrivance brings about real injury, the Court has the power to choose who assumes the fault. Regardless of their feeling challenge limitation and well-known impression of their material as frequently hostile, professional comedians screen their material for the expected offence. They evaluate the degree of the malfeasance and alter their exhibitions accordingly, and at times, they apply unique formulae to this cycle. If it becomes evident that the comedian was without a doubt making statements on a lighter note, the Court should build up a point of reference about it. Irrespective of the outcome, the decision will contain ramifications for making jokes before a crowd of people. Later on, comedians may need to practice more alert in completing the qualification between their genuine and kidding self. In this, entertainers should reconsider isolating yet one more strand in the professionalized demonstration of being.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

REFERENCES

1. Constitution of India
2. Contempt, Dignity and Fair Criticism
3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
4. K. Kay, New Indian Nuttahs, Palgrave Studies in Comedy, Riffing India Comedy, Identity, and Censorship.
5. Paul Sturges, (2010),"Comedy as freedom of expression", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66 Iss 2 pp. 279 - 293