There is a distinction between the defamation against a Judge in his personal capacity, and a contempt of Court. If a person makes certain defamatory remarks against a Judge in his personal capacity, the aggrieved Judge shall have to sue the contemner in his personal capacity on his own name, but not on his post of Judge.
Whereas the defamatory remarks are aimed to interfere with the dignity of the Court and administration of justice, then it would be treated as ‘contempt of Court’. The Court (Supreme Court or High Court) can entertain any petition in that connection treating it as contempt of Court, as was taken as suo motu in Sundaram Case.
It is clarified by the Supreme Court in Perspective Publications vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221) as follows: “A distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation of a Judge and what amounts to a contempt of the Court.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the Judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by his Court. It is only in the latter case that it will be punishable as contempt.
Alternatively the test will be whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. To borrow from the language of Mukherjee J. (as he then was) (Brahma Prakash Sharma’s Case AIR 1954 SC 10), the publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court’s administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties.”