There have been cases involving both the Indian Constitution's Article 19(2) and the Contempt Of Courts Act. Smt. Archana Guha v. Sri Ranjit Guha , for example, involved a disagreement over an item published in a Calcutta newspaper. It should be highlighted that the criticism of a judgment was made by twisting the facts, but the Calcutta High Court found no contempt because criticizing the judiciary should be permitted, even if done incorrectly. This case demonstrated the critical principle that no contempt lawsuit should be filed just because a particular judgment was misunderstood in the media. A substitute remedy in the form of clarification with the Press Registrar has been offered for the same.
By placing constraints in the form of the Act, media freedom is not curtailed. Rather than that, such constraints teach us that no freedom is absolute. The Act expressly refers to civil or criminal contempt. Civil contempt is defined as disobeying a court's judgment, order, decree, or other similar documents, which is irrelevant to the media. Criminal contempt is defined as any publication in any medium with the intent of undermining the authority of the Courts, interfering with any court trial, or impairing justice in any way. This criminal contempt is what constrains the media's freedom of expression. However, the Act has defined what is and is not contempt in Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 (as amended in 2006).
While these parts define contempt, their language is imprecise. This ambiguity vests judges with considerable authority to determine when and how contempt actions may be commenced. Section. 4 and section 5 use the word "fair" in the marginal note, but do not elaborate on what constitutes "fair." While the language of Section 3(3) appears to establish a presumption of guilt, it must be understood that such a presumption is predicated on the conviction that a publication according to Section 3 was made in good faith. The case of NN Choudhuri v. Bela Bala Devi  established that the individual accused with contempt will be given the benefit of the doubt. This is because criminal contempt cases are viewed as quasi-criminal in nature, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
What becomes difficult is that courts finally decide what constitutes contemptible conduct and what does not. This interpretation is enshrined in the Constitution as the Courts' inherent jurisdiction over contempt cases. This jurisdiction, in fact, introduces its own set of complications. Due to the lack of a specific criterion defining what constitutes contempt, the Courts are granted considerable discretion in determining the same. Judges may exercise this authority arbitrarily, particularly in instances or situations involving heightened emotions in courtrooms. It may also demonstrate the presence of bias, as who made the contemptuous statement may be just as significant as what was said to trigger the contempt proceedings.
True, the Court normally does not use contempt of court as a first resort (a restraining order is, and upon a violation of such order contempt proceedings is initiated). However, whether the scenario necessitates contempt proceedings, the issue is the Court's inherent authority to rule on such matters. The inherent jurisdiction comes perilously close to breaking natural justice norms, which is why the media (and others who face contempt proceedings) are weary of this doctrine, and understandably so.
Media organizations — both print and broadcast – have been sued for contempt. The Privy Council held in Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. The King Emperor that the editors and publishers of the Hindustan Times did not commit contempt by impeding the administration of justice; rather, the newspaper article criticized the Allahabad Chief Justice's administrative capacity, which cannot be construed as contempt. The Supreme Court held in Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose  that the article published in the Times of India not only questioned a Court judgment, but also implied motives for the Judges.
If the essay had been written solely as a criticism, it would have been accepted. However, because the piece was directed at the Judges, it diminished the Court's dignity, prompting contempt proceedings against the editor, publisher, and printer of the Times of India. Contempt of court cannot emerge if a single Judge has been singled out for criticism or writing critically about him or her. Contempt proceedings may be brought only if the content so publicized also impacts the judiciary's public opinion. The landmark judgments In Re: Mulgaokar  and In Re: Shri Shyam Lal  were delivered following the arrest of the editors of the leading national dailies the Indian Express and Times of India for their criticism of the ADM Jabalpur case. The Supreme Court commuted the sentences of the editor, publisher, and printer when an article made offensive comments about a certain High Court verdict, and that High Court had instituted contempt proceedings against the editor, publisher, and printer.