Contempt of court must be dealt with accordingly

TwentyTwo13:

Contempt of court must be dealt with accordingly

The issue of contempt of court has drawn the attention and concern of scholars, experts, policymakers, and many others in Malaysia.

Over the years, we have come across cases involving court orders that were not adhered to.

Such a case that comes to mind is the one involving M. Indira Gandhi.

Indira’s fugitive ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah (formerly K. Pathmanathan) had failed to return their daughter, Prasana Diksa, to their mother, despite a court order.

Last year, Indira, a kindergarten teacher, filed a contempt of court application against the police in relation to their failure to affirm affidavits every month and to submit them to the High Court from 2014 to 2020.

The most recent guardianship case involved single mother Loh Siew Hong, who had been seeking guardianship, and full custody, care and control of her three children, but had not been able to do so (up until yesterday) despite a court order last year, and an earlier one, in 2019.

In reality, contempt of court takes many forms and may impede the sanctity and functionality of the court.

Contempt of court is generally defined as contempt by interference and contempt by disobedience.

Contempt of interference comprises a wide range of acts, including interfering with the ability of a witness to appear in court, the risk of prejudicing or interfering with a court proceeding that is pending, and questioning the integrity or impartiality of any court.

It poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined (also known as scandalising contempt).

Contempt of disobedience includes intentional disobedience of court orders as well as intentional breaches of undertakings given to the court.

The punishment for contempt of court, whether civil or criminal, is a fine or imprisonment, or both. The term of imprisonment and/or a fine imposed would depend on the precise facts and context of each case.

Malaysia’s legal definition of contempt of court is based on the Common Law doctrine and not any codified statute.

Contempt of court is to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not undermined. In exercising such powers, the court is not seeking to vindicate its own dignity, or the self-esteem of judges, but to safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings for the benefit of those seeking recourse before the courts.

Courts interpret laws without fear or favour and make it part of the living fabric of our lives. Courts are colour-blind and apply laws accordingly about issues and controversies brought before them. Courts resolve disputes between people, companies, and entities of government.

More often than not, courts are called on to uphold checks and balances. Most importantly, courts protect the sovereignty of law against possible and/or abuses by all government entities.

The courts protect vulnerable and susceptible minorities of all types, from the majority. They protect the rights of people who are unable to protect themselves from any unwarranted persecution, regardless of residential status. Courts uphold the notion of equal treatment and fair play.

Thus, laws of any democratic sovereign nation would not function effectively when contempt of court appears to be a legitimate issue.

This means courts are not under the purview of political powers.

Judges can assure that all cases will be decided according to the law and the facts, and are not vulnerable to the vagaries of political currents.

Those who create chaos in society by interfering and disobeying the courts must be punished accordingly.





P. Sundramoorthy

Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy is an honorary associate professor (criminology) at the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He previously served on two national committees – the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s operations review panel and the special committee to review alternate sentences to the mandatory death penalty.