Contempt of court and democracy

Donald Trump has finally left the White House President Joe Biden is acting fast to revoke many of the Trump decisions affecting the US and the world.

The world is watching the new trend in the US, and the claims that Democracy has been restored. There will certainly be many more actions needed to restore or ensure Democracy in the USA  – because it needs much more than universal franchise. In fact, on the subject of universal franchise – Sri Lanka is far ahead of the US-nearly 70 years.  But, let’s be cautious in making any claim that we are a wholly a democratic nation or country…we  certainly need much more to claim that.

Democracy aside, we are now in the midst of a raging debate on the Judiciary. Film star-turned-politician, Ranjan Ramanayake is the stuff  of the debate here, with his four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Contempt of Court. Are we still in the colonial stage and thinking on Justice and Contempt? How fair, equitable and honourable, are our law and traditions on Contempt of Court?

We are now having a big issue whether India should be given 49% of the East Container Terminal in the Port of Colombo. There are also increasing and loud disapprovals on the delay in obtaining Covid-19 vaccines from India. Let’s put these aside, and with one of our most popular and thrice re-elected member of Parliament, having to face four years of rigorous imprisonment, see if we have in any way gone beyond the colonial days of subjugation under the British, on the matter of Contempt of Court —  a key factor of Justice. Are we ready to admit that this Hindu majority neighbour is far ahead of us in this key area of Justice? Or, should we just keep in line with the colonial rulers?

Let’s be honest – we have no proper law on Contempt of Court. We have a constitutional provision, which does not lay down the proper legal practice in dealing with this “offence” against the law. There is  no minimum or maximum sentence, no provision for appeal against a Supreme Court, which happens to be the only court where the case is heard. 

Is this the substance of Justice?     

Look at the realities. Ramanayake is accused of having insulted the judiciary and members of the legal profession. He said what he believed. Have they always been clean, above dishonesty and deceit, and what about his democratic right to freedom of speech and comment?  

We are still not too far away from a former Chief Justice, who acted in favour of a political leader in respect of Tsunami relief funds. He even admitted this several years later. Is that the stuff or substance of a non-corrupt judiciary?

Is this the situation in which Ranjan Ramanayake must suffer four years of rigorous imprisonment, and also lose his membership of Parliament, and be unable to contest a parliamentary election for many years to come?

Just look at Parliament he was in until last week and the judicial order for imprisonment; he has no other convictions. One member who was elected  after being found guilty of murder is allowed to participate in the House sittings with the consent of the Speaker. Another member who has been five years and more in remand custody is now fully free, after the Attorney General’s Department found evidence against him isufficient as regards the murder of a member of Parliament at a Christmas Day church ceremony in 2005. 

Just look at some of the Indian judgments on Contempt of Court. In the Bikram Birla Case on indecent, insulting comments on the judiciary the judgement was imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200.

More recently, Indian lawyer Prashant Bhooshan, who made on contemptuous statements via Twitter, was fined just one rupee, and brief imprisonment if the fine was unpaid.

Well-known journalist, author and social activist Arundhathi Roy, on charges of insulting the judiciary was sentenced to jail for one day. Shouldn’t we learn from this Indian trend? Another matter that comes to mind is whether it is proper for the institution (or persons) allegedly hurt by the actions or comments of a citizen, hear and give judgment on one’s own case? 

So, why not have a different judiciary – possibly with retired senior judges or persons with such experience and eminence – to hear cases of Contempt of Court?

Also, why not have proper legislation laying down the exact explanation of contempt and  the minimum and maximum punishments, as well as provisions to keep the guilty out of prisons on the basis of good behaviour? Isn’t this the stuff and substance of democracy.

We certainly don’t need either Joe Biden or the Queen of England to teach this. It is the task of our own lawmakers, including those sentenced by the courts who are now making our laws. 

This is the issue of justice and legality, together with civic rights and common sense that Ranjan Ramanayake has brought before us, as he suffers four years of rigorous imprisonment, that bothers the minds of democratic citizens.