brand logo

Contempt of court law should not be in contempt of freedoms

29 Jun 2022

The offence of contempt of court is one of those laws that do not really resonate with the people. They often wonder whether their criticism of a court or judge can be construed as contempt of court if it is based on credible or justifiable reasons. In recent history, there have been several occasions – such as the case of former MP Ranjan Ramanayake – on which the people were extremely critical of the enforcement of this law, and overall, they did not agree with what seems to constitute contempt of court. On this front, Minister of Justice Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe (PC) has paid attention to reforming this law, and making it more logical and sensible. Yesterday (28), it was reported that Cabinet approval had been granted to a proposal submitted by Dr. Rajapakshe PC for the Legal Draftsman to draft a Bill to introduce a new law in this regard. This draft Bill is to be based on one prepared by the Sri Lanka Law Commission with the aim of introducing appropriate laws with regard to contempt of court.  The Cabinet announcement in this regard pointed out the root cause of the questions that the people, to whom the courts are answerable, have, with the main one being what exactly constitutes contempt of court. It noted that currently, the Sri Lankan law has not defined the offence of contempt of court, and that there is no clear or single procedure to be adhered to when hearing such cases and reaching a verdict. What is more, it stated that this situation has made it difficult to comprehend the limits of intervening to serve justice and the limits of the freedom of expression. The authorities admitting that not having a clear definition for an offence – which makes the verdict of a case dependent largely on judges’ discretion and has hindered the process of serving justice, is a welcome move. However, legal reforms in this regard, as the Cabinet had noted, should look into both serving justice and the freedom of expression. The court system has been established to serve the people, and upholding the people’s democratic and Constitutional rights is one of its key duties. The freedom of expression, among them, is an inalienable freedom, and cannot be challenged unless the exercise of that freedom violates any existing laws. This is when existing law, as well as new laws that are in the making, should be concerned about what limits to the freedom of expression should be identified and how they are to be defined in the context of this offence. Legal experts have observed that some countries have more relaxed laws when it comes to the offence of contempt of court. However, the extent to which contempt – which some may call subjective – can be defined is limited, and the final verdict of a contempt of court case is in the hands of judges. Whether they deem that a certain form of expression is tantamount to contempt of court is what determines a large part of the court’s verdict, and therefore, it is crucial that the new laws are as comprehensive as possible and in line with internationally recognised limits on the freedom of expression. Every citizen should have the freedom to express their opinions about any public institution that has been established to serve them. However, the exercise of that freedom should not hinder the process of serving the people. Balancing these two aspects is the challenge the lawmakers will face when drafting new laws, or more aptly defined laws, as the authorities claim. However, when enforcing these laws, identifying where the line between the freedom of expression and contempt of court should be drawn is what will protect the said freedom and allow justice to be served without hindrance.


More News..