Article 129

The concept of a 'court of record' comes from English common law, where such courts had their proceedings treated as unquestionable evidence and had inherent authority to protect their own dignity and enforce their orders. The Constitution's framers gave the Supreme Court this status to ensure it had the highest possible authority and independence, so it could function without being undermined by disobedience or scandalous attacks, and so its judgments would be treated as final and authoritative records across the country.

The Supreme Court has held that its contempt power under Article 129 is a constitutional power, not merely a statutory one, meaning Parliament cannot take it away or limit it through ordinary law (as seen in cases like Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 1991, and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998). Courts have clarified that this power must be used sparingly and only to preserve the administration of justice, not to shield judges from fair criticism.

• Myth: The Supreme Court can punish anyone for contempt just for criticizing a judgment they disagree with.
  Fact: Courts have clarified that fair, reasoned criticism of judgments is protected free speech; contempt power is meant only for cases that seriously undermine the administration of justice, not for silencing disagreement.
• Myth: Parliament can pass a law to remove or limit the Supreme Court's contempt power under Article 129.
  Fact: Courts have held that this power is rooted directly in the Constitution, so it cannot be taken away by ordinary legislation, though procedural aspects can be regulated by law.