The judicial supremacy cannot be based on the law of kings in a democracy.
The contempt law has been employed when judges were made targets of personal attacks or to silence criticism of judgments.
In the UK and US, where both civil and criminal contempt laws are in operation, substantial amendments have constrained the powers of judges who might otherwise have acted to vindicate their authority, pomp and majesty which are anathema to a democratic institution.
The Indian contempt Act of 1971 has evolved over time to incorporate amendments that delineated what does not constitute contempt and framed rules to regulate contempt proceedings, yet inconsistencies remain.
In 2006, an important amendment to the 1971 Act provided for truth as a valid defence in contempt proceedings, especially because the law was considered a threat to the fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of expression.
Not just the doctrine of truth but public interest must be the cornerstones on which the law must be based..
The veracity of Collegium System , logic of judgement and the criticism of a judge in public interest must not come within the definition of contempt.
The suo motu proceedings raise more eyes.
The U.K. Law Commission in a 2012 report recommending the abolition of the law of contempt said that the law was originally intended to maintain a “blaze of glory” around courts. It said that the purpose of the offence was not “confined to preventing the public from getting the wrong idea about judges... but that where there are shortcomings, it is equally important to prevent the public from getting the right idea”.
Source : The Times of India + The Hindu