Nature of Contempt Law and Individual Rights

(Personal Opinion by Praveen Dalal, Advocate Delhi High Court)

My personal opinion for the questions posed by Ms Tina Aranha is:

(Q-3) What is the nature of contempt law vis-à-vis individual’s rights?

 (A-4) The contempt law is an important aspect of “reasonable restrictions” as imposed upon the rights of the individuals. The contempt law is absolutely necessary and it does not operate as a deterrent to the rights of the individuals. The individuals are free to exercise their rights but in no case they should be exercised by either violating the rights of others or by showing disrespect to the Courts. Even otherwise none should show disrespect towards others because the only thing that differentiates the Human Beings from animals is that the former is a possessor of “moral agency and Human Rights”, which must be respected by others. None can claim a right to show “disrespect” towards others and contempt law is a legal recognition of this fact in favour of the Courts.

 (Q-4)  Why should rights have restrictions?

 (A-4) It is often said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The conferment of rights also provides certain amount of power that can be exercised to keep away encroachments and violations.

The concept of righthood is directly and essentially attached to the very existence of Human Beings. Thus, so long as we are living in a civilised, balanced and humanitarian society we do need neither the rights nor the limitations on them.

The situation is, however, not as complacent as desired and we occasionally come across various violations of rights by the possessors of these rights. There is a “Jural relationship” between rights and duties. The right of one may involve the duty of others to respect that right. In other words no right can be effectively and meaningfully enjoyed unless others respect it. Thus, a delicate balance is maintained by providing both the rights and limitations at the same time. A person can enjoy his rights without violating the rights of others. Thus, a balance is maintained between the rights of various individuals. If there is a conflict between the rights of two individuals, then we have to give precedence to that right which is advancing the public interest. This takes us to the second stage where the rights of an individual are pitted against the rights of the society at large. In such an eventuality the societal interest will get the precedence and it will prevail over the individual’s interest.

Thus, the rights should be subject to “reasonable restrictions” and the “societal interest” otherwise there would be a complete chaos in the society. To maintain the order of the society we have to put rights into certain well-defined parameters and if they try to transgress their limits, then the law steps in to prevent the encroachment over other’s rights. 

Other Articles of Praveen Dalal