by Wakeley Paul, Esq., December 16, 2004
The decision of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court Of Sri Lanka finding a politician guilty of contempt, clearly indicates that the Sri Lankan Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech, a concept which was never referred to in the court’s judgment.
One must, however, realize that there were other grounds upon which the statements of the politician were found to be contemtuous of the court. They were among others [i] The foul language used to describe the court and [ii] The fact that he advocated that the decision be defied once it was delivered.
Contempt in the narrower sense in the U.S generally covers deliberate violations of a court order or decision. One cannot however describe a judge as an idiot for disagreeing with counsel’s argument, as that would violate the decorum that must be observed in court to ensure the smooth administration of justice. The same could well apply to a description of the judge or judges comprising the court by anyone. Neither could one advocate the deliberate defiance of a court order for the same reason. Contempt is a delicate subject that has to be balanced with the right of free speech, which is not guarenteed by the Sri Lankan Constitution.
An vivid example of a case bordering on, but not falling within the ambit of contempt, is illustrated by the following: An English Judge was growng increasingly irritated by and impatient with Counsel’s constant effort to disgree with his Lordship’s view of the law. The Judge, unable to take it any more, asked Counsel “Are you, Sir, trying to show your contempt for this court; and counsel repled “No, my Lord, I am trying my best to conceal it”
Wakeley Paul, Attorney at Law, New Jersey, Barrister at Law, Middle Temple London,
Former Crown Counsel, Ceylon, and Law graduate Cambridge University, England and Stanford Law School, California, Ford and Asia Foundation Scholar