Author: Palak Srivastava, Himgiri Zee University, Dehradun

COVID-19 has made in-face hearing unsafe for everyone. Being in court and solving cases have been a hardship for a year. But justice doesn’t wait for someone and so our honourable Supreme Court decided to conduct the hearings on virtual platforms. The electronic committee headed by Judge DY Chandrachud has done a lot of work in this area. However, virtual litigation is mainly limited to emergency hearings in the High Court and the Supreme Court. There is also a very selective and arbitrary method of deciding what is urgent. So, the High Court followed the same rule for the safety and wellbeing of each other, maintaining the decorum of the court and identifying the need for reforms.


On 2nd June 2021, a virtual hearing was being conducted in the Delhi High Court over the plea of famous actress Juhi Chawla, also an environmental activist. She pleaded for “Is 5G technology safe for humans, birds and other beings on the planet?” The fifth generation wireless network for mobile broadband, commonly known as 5G, promises to deliver benefits such as ultra fast connections and low latency. However, due to concerns about health issues and even some conspiracy theories trying to link it to the coronavirus, 5G’s promotion in many countries have been hampered. In any case, Chawla’s claim brings up issues about the general effect of 5G and low power radio frequency (RF) and electronic magnetic field (EMF) radiation on human health and their environmental impact. Although these concerns have not been confirmed, many scientists have raised them before.

The Judge C Hari Shankar who heard the matter moved the case to another court, which was heard on June 2. Juhi Chawla said that if the telecom business’ arrangement for 5G happens as expected, there will be no individuals, creatures, birds, creepy crawlies and plants on Earth that can keep away from contact, 24 hours every day, 365 days per year, at RF radiation levels 10 to multiple times more prominent than what exists today. She said that these 5G plans can possibly cause genuine and irreversible effects on people and cause lasting harm to all biological systems in the world. The claim was documented by legal advisor Deepak Khosla, looking for directions from the specialists to demonstrate to the public that 5G innovation is ok for people, men , ladies, grown-ups, youngsters, infants, kids, creatures, and different organic entities, greenery.

However, the virtual audience was interrupted by a man who started to sing songs from actress movies. Due to the strange interruption, the audience had to stop. The man was restored after being deleted from the meeting. The court took this matter seriously and issued a contempt of court notice to him. The man’s first song, “Ghoonghat ki aad se” comes from Juhi’s 1993 film, Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke. He left the audience and joined again. “Lal lal Hoton pe” started singing for the second time in Juhi’s 1995 film “Naajayaz”. He appeared in the audience for the third time and sang the actress “Meri Banno ki Aayegi Baraat” in Aaina in 1993. It was heard that the man said, “Where is Juhi? I can’t see you”. When the judge demanded that officials be silenced for court length, he said, “At first she went to the audience by the name of Azan and after that Manish Koirala and then was renamed Jahnvi. It was found that the actress shared a link on her Twitter and Instagram account and a video to join the link last night. On twitter, she tweeted the following: “As I write, this concerns you and I really believe it. Please feel free to attend the first virtual hearing on June 2nd at 10:45am in the Delhi High Court.” Judge JR Midha referred the trial chief to block the trial so that a notice of contempt of court was issued against him, contacting Delhi Police (cyber cell) and asking the person to be identified. It is a light story, but Mr Khosla said that the person may have been affected by radiation.

The Delhi High Court tested Bollywood entertainer Juhi Chawla to straightforwardly record a claim against the foundation of a 5G remote organization in India, without giving any explanation to the Central Government about her interests about the innovation. Delhi High Court judge , JR Midha said that offended party Chawla and the other two should initially apply to the Central Government for their privileges and, whenever denied, they ought to go to court. The High Court Delhi kept everything under control of procedures subsequent to hearing the contentions of the gatherings. The application guarantees that the 5G remote innovation plan can cause genuine and irreversible consequences for people and cause lasting harm to the world’s environment.

In any case, Juhi Chawla’s appeal against the dispatch of 5G in the nation was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on June 5. “The claim was excused. The offended party mishandled the lawful interaction. The offended party was accused of 20 lakh rupees,” the court said, and requested Juhi Chawla to pay the expenses of the claim. “This claim is by all accounts for publicity purposes. Juhi Chawla gave a connection to the crowd via web-based media,” the High Court said.

The Delhi High Court has communicated worry about the dangers of radiation and vigorously reprimanded Juhi Chawla’s “counterfeit and disgraceful” common claim pointed toward obstructing the development of 5G innovation. This is a common example of how not to draft an arraignment and ought to be educated to youthful attorneys in graduate schools. They would then be able to abstain from gathering such mistakes on demand, consequently giving negative audits about their clients. When Juhi Chawla’s lawyer, Deepak Khosla, demanded to maintain the unfounded charges, the court said that they can opt for legal resources available and legal professionals must be aware of their limitations.


Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 defines contempt of court as civil or criminal contempt punishable under section 12 of the act. It is a concept designed to protect the judiciary from motivated attacks and unprovoked criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who want to lower their authority. However, the current contempt of court law is generally believed to be somewhat uncertain and unsatisfactory because:

  1. It attacks two important basic rights of citizens, namely the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to personal freedom as defined in Article 19.
  2. Compared to the offence of defamation (defined in Section 500 of IPC 1860), the penalty for contempt of court is much lower, even if the nature of the two offences is similar.


Contempt of court, generally referred to as “contempt of court” is a crime of disobedience or lack of respect for the court and its officials in the form of opposition or contempt for the authority, justice and dignity of the court.

According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt of court can be civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to deliberate disobedience to any judgement, decree, instruction, order, injunction or other procedure of the court, or deliberate violation of the promise made to the court. On the other hand, criminal contempt is attracted by the publication of anything (whether in oral, written form, or through signs, visible indications, or other means) or the performance of any other behaviour as:

  1. Defame or tend to weaken the jurisdiction of any court ; or
  2. Damage, interfere or tend to interfere with the proper conduct of any legal process ; or
  3. Interfere or tend to interfere or obstruct or tend to obstruct the judicial administration of justice in any other form.

According to the law, contempt of court can be punishable by a simple imprisonment that can be extended to six months, or a fine of 2,ooo rupees, or both, but only if the defendant can be released or sentenced. The apology can be submitted to the court.

Period of Limitation:

Article 20 of Contempt of Court Act, manages the legal time limit to start procedures for scorn. Article 20 specifies that no court may start scorn procedures with its own thoughts or different methods following one year has slipped by from the date of the supposed disdain of court. The legal time limit applies to common and criminal hatred of court. Scorn procedures can be started by documenting an application or by the actual court. In the two cases, the hatred claim should be started inside one year from the date of the supposed scorn. In the wrongdoing of criminal hatred of court, disdain of court happens at the hour of legal embarrassment or impedance in the legal organization. Thus, the activity starts quickly during the maturing time frame. Nonetheless, on account of common scorn, the legal time limit doesn’t start from the date of the request. When the confirmed duplicate of the request hosts has been conveyed to the next get-together, it will start to work after the termination of the period referenced in the request. On the off chance that as far as possible isn’t referenced in the request, the request will be satisfied inside a sensible timeframe. The expression “sensible period”? It is deciphered as a quarter of a year from the date of conveyance of the affirmed duplicate.


  1. Without knowing the order , the contempt is done.
  2. Disobedience or violation is unintentional.
  3. Disobedience orders are vague or ambiguous.
  4. The order means more than just a reasonable explanation.
  5. The fulfilment of the order is impossible.
  6. The order has been approved without jurisdiction.


  1. Harmless publishing and distribution problems.
  2. Report the judicial process impartially and accurately.
  3. Criticize judicial actions impartially.
  4. Bonafide sued the presiding judge of the lower court.
  5. There is no substantial interference in the due process of justice.
  6. Justified by the truth.
  7. The condemned statement can have different interpretations.
  8. Defamation of the judge personally.


Article 14 of Contempt of Court deals with the procedure of contempt in the face of court of record, but Article 15 deals with the procedure in cases other than in the face of court of record. This is also called constructive insult. Section 129 provides for the Supreme Court and Section 215 provides that every High Court also has full powers, including to punish contempt of court, as a court of record for all higher courts. Because these higher courts of record have the inherent power to punish contempt of court, these courts of record can easily handle these issues and adopt their own proceedings.

The only case that the record court must observe while exercising derogatory jurisdiction is to provide all the opportunities to protect one-self to competitors who claim that the procedures adopted are fair and rational. It means that you need to. No one will be punished with contempt unless the specific suspicion of it is clearly defined and given a reasonable opportunity to answer it and protect oneself from such suspicion. The insult procedure is neither a civil lawsuit nor a criminal. They are “Sui Generis”. As a result, insult procedures are not regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even Indian evidence law provisions are not covered in contempt of court proceedings. Contempt of Court, including contempt of court, is not a crime in the sense of the Criminal Procedure. The power of the Supreme Court and the High Court to initiate a contempt of court action to issue a criminal order is a special jurisdiction unique to all courts of record. Code explicitly excludes special jurisdictions from the scope of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 14 deals with contempt of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and provides that when the Supreme Court and the High Court consider that a person is guilty of contempt in their presence of hearing, the court can urge the person to be detained. And anytime before getting up the same day or earlier in the courtroom, thereafter:

  1. Inform you in writing of the alleged contempt of court.
  2. Give him the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations.
  3. After obtaining the evidence that the person can provide and hearing their statement, the allegations will be determined immediately after the adjournment.
  4. Order the necessary sanction or dismissal of the person.



Till the present time, The House of Lords has been a significant case in the hatred of court. The nobility set up three objectives for the idea of court affronts in significant cases. The three objects are:

  1. To guarantee that the gatherings to the case can come to court without impedance from outsiders.
  2. To permit the court to start a suit without obstruction.
  3. 3. To guarantee that the force and pride of the court is kept up.


However, during virtual hearings, do similar standards and reasons for existing are being followed? However, we as a whole realize it is turning into the hardest for individuals to adapt to everything during the pandemic yet does that mean they can act up? For the situation, HUM TUM AUR 5G, we perceived how an individual submitted underhandedness even after a few alerts from the appointed authority. Consequently, because of the conditions, the notification of disdain of court must be given. In any case, the inquiry emerges: Who is responsible for this naughtiness? Without a doubt, the denounced individual is, at the same time, Who gave him the authorization to enter in the meeting? Juhi Chawla shared the connection to the gathering on her web-based media accounts; instagram and twitter.


Was that right? Who gave her that consent? Is it true that she is not responsible for the event of wickedness? There are a lot more inquiries to be posed and to be replied to. Hatred of court was submitted, the individual who submitted so was permitted to enter over and over. Who was directing the gathering? Who was permitting obscure individuals to join the meeting? Was everybody permitted to enter the gathering? These inquiries are as yet unanswered and will be so. This absolutely implies that there were no severe principles to the joining of gatherings, here everybody is liable for the naughtiness. Certain jokes are being passed on by that individual that said, “He was unable to get temporary positions, so got exhausted and went to the consultation”. This is our stage where we stand.


Certainly, stricter principles and guidelines are required including the quick execution for the improvement of this. Individuals are making jokes since laws are not getting executed. Even after the issue of the notification of disdain, who can say that no other individual will at any point play out this demonstration or such demonstrations later in court? Maligning law, law understudies, legal counselors, equity, judges and each and every individual who is the piece of this general public isn’t the arrangement. What we need is regard for laws and the framework if the overall population needs regard to them-self. Furthermore, the equivalent is relevant to the entire administrative framework. GIVE RESPECT, TAKE RESPECT.


As per the Constitution, Articles 129 and 215 award the Superior Court the ability to rebuff disdain of court. The Supreme Court and the High Court are entrusted with exploring and rebuffing hatred of the court through the forces presented by the above arrangements for the examination and order of disdain of the court. Section 142(2) additionally enables the Supreme Court to examine and rebuff people for hatred of court. Allahabad High Court has 25,370 common disdain claims forthcoming. The greater part of the forthcoming suit has been a court outrage as for phrasing that is questionable whether it alludes to the issue given by the 1971 scorn of court charge.

Justice Krishna Iyer said that India’s principles on scorn of court are obscure and indistinct. In India, law is a reason for vulnerability. On the off chance that the courts can give a legitimate and thorough clarification and meaning of these terms, then, at that point vulnerability can be wiped out.

The premise of equity is for the most part dependent on the trust of the average folks, and the idea of definition that loses that trust or trust comes up short. The contempt for compassionate law is identified with the right to speak freely and articulation ensured by the Constitution of India, is conflicting, and ought to be perceived regarding the situation with legal executive in certain significant occasions. It is right to say that there is a genuine strain between opportunity of articulation and opportunity of articulation and the organization of legitimate definition in light of the fact that the two standards are of equivalent significance.

There is no doubt that except if the legal executive supplier (i.e., the legal executive) has an unprotected mass of help, lawful principles can’t exist. Give the legal executive a solitary ability to rebuff individuals who meddle with equity. Besides, the force given to the court isn’t to maintain the honorability of the court, yet to keep up the poise of the court and the legitimate utilization of the law. In this way, reasonable and legitimate execution of the idea of hatred of court in uncommon and sensible cases is vital to the Indian legal framework. This may be said if the forces allowed by that specific law have been cautiously and appropriately worked out.




● 2021. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 23 June 2021].

● 2021. Contempt of Court: Analysis. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 24 June 2021].


  • com. 2021. Exploring the contempt of court | Lexology. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 22 June 2021].

●      mint. 2021. Man sings Juhi Chawla’s songs during 5G case hearing by Delhi HC. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 23 June 2021].


  • com. 2021. “For Publicity”: Juhi Chawla’s 5G Case Dismissed, Court Says Pay 20 Lakh. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 23 June 2021].


  • The Hindu. 2021. Man sings Juhi Chawla’s songs, interrupts proceedings on her plea against 5G in High Court. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 23 June 2021].

●      Verma, A., 2021. Contempt of court and professional ethics – iPleaders. [online] iPleaders. Available at: <> [Accessed 21 June 2021].


*The views in this article are author’s point of view. BSK Legal may or may not subscribe to the views of the author. This article is not intended to substitute legal advice. Any portion or part of this article can be reproduced, copied or used, in whole or in part, after giving due credit to the publisher. The Copyright of the article is with the author.