Article 129

Article 129 of the Constitution of India establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record, signifying its authority to preserve and maintain permanent records of its proceedings and judgments. These records serve as conclusive evidence and are admissible in all subordinate courts throughout the nation. The Article also vests the Supreme Court with the power to punish for contempt, ensuring that its dignity, independence, and authority are upheld within the judicial framework of the country.

Background and Constitutional Context

The concept of a court of record has been inherited from British jurisprudence, wherein certain superior courts possessed the inherent authority to maintain official records of proceedings and to punish for contempt. The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated this feature into the judicial system to safeguard the independence and respect of the judiciary.
Article 129 forms part of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution, which deals with the Union Judiciary. It reflects the framers’ intention to establish the Supreme Court not merely as a final court of appeal, but also as the ultimate guardian of constitutional discipline and judicial integrity.

Court of Record: Meaning and Significance

A court of record is one whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony. The records so maintained are of evidentiary value and cannot be challenged in any subordinate court. In the context of Article 129, this implies:

• The Supreme Court’s judgments and orders are permanently preserved.
• These records carry legal sanctity and are accepted as authoritative evidence.
• The Court’s interpretations of law form binding precedents under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The designation of the Supreme Court as a court of record thus underscores its institutional continuity, credibility, and role as the custodian of justice in India.

Powers to Punish for Contempt

Article 129 confers upon the Supreme Court the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. This power is essential to ensure that judicial orders are respected, proceedings are conducted with decorum, and the authority of the judiciary remains intact.
Contempt of court refers to any act that undermines the authority, dignity, or functioning of the court. It can be categorised into two main types:

• Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, or order of the court.
• Criminal Contempt: Any publication or act that scandalises the court, lowers its authority, or interferes with the administration of justice.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 supplements Article 129 by defining these forms of contempt and providing procedural guidelines for contempt proceedings.

Judicial Procedure and Discretion

The Supreme Court may initiate contempt proceedings suo motu or upon a petition by an aggrieved party. The Court exercises discretion in determining the gravity of contempt and the appropriate penalty. Sanctions may include fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature of the offence.
However, the Supreme Court exercises this power with restraint, recognising the delicate balance between maintaining judicial authority and upholding fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The Supreme Court has, through several rulings, elaborated upon the scope and limitations of its powers under Article 129. Notable cases include:

• In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995): The Court emphasised the necessity of preserving the dignity of the judiciary, defining the boundaries of contempt and reinforcing its punitive authority.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016): This judgment reaffirmed the Court’s power to ensure compliance with its orders, thereby maintaining institutional supremacy.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): While primarily concerning the right to privacy, this case reinforced the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights and its authority to interpret the Constitution conclusively.

Limitations and Safeguards

Although Article 129 grants broad powers, these are not absolute. The exercise of contempt powers is subject to judicial review and must align with constitutional principles of fairness and reasonableness. The Court itself has acknowledged that the power to punish for contempt should not be used to stifle legitimate criticism or debate concerning judicial functioning.
To ensure accountability, the judiciary adheres to self-regulation and procedural fairness when exercising contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Section 13, restricts punishment to instances where the act substantially interferes with justice.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Several other Articles complement the authority granted under Article 129:

• Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
• Article 144: Mandates that all civil and judicial authorities in India act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforceability of its judgments.
• Article 141: Establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Together, these provisions reinforce the Supreme Court’s position at the apex of the Indian judicial hierarchy.

Significance of Article 129

Article 129 plays a pivotal role in maintaining the sanctity and efficiency of the judicial process. It ensures that:

• The authority of the Supreme Court is not diminished by disregard or defiance.
• Judicial pronouncements are respected and implemented across the nation.
• The rule of law is preserved, safeguarding citizens’ trust in the judicial system.
• The Court’s independence remains insulated from political or public pressures.

Contemporary Relevance

In contemporary times, the invocation of contempt powers has sparked debate over the balance between judicial dignity and free expression. The Supreme Court’s approach reflects a measured stance — safeguarding its authority without curbing democratic discourse. This ongoing balance underscores the enduring relevance of Article 129 in India’s constitutional democracy.