The criminal contempt jurisprudence in India has been a part of several debates tracing way back from Constituent Assembly Debates to the recent Prashant Bhushan contempt case. The vigour and continuity with which the Indian courts have and are resorting to charging the alleged contemnors with contempt of court have led free speech activists to assail the provision for scandalising the court under S. 2 (c) (1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This paper intends to carry forward the argument against the impugned provision by arguing that scandalising the judiciary should not be a ground for contempt of court on several counts such as freedom of speech and expression, the ambiguity of the provision, absence of transparency etc. This paper is discussed under five headings. The first part would give an introduction to the Indian law of contempt and trace its origin in the Constituent Assembly. The second part would address various issues that arise with the impugned provision. The third part would bring out various instances of procedural lapses that have occurred in the commencement of contempt proceedings, thereby questioning the procedural fairness aspect of the proceedings. The fourth part would elaborate on the vagueness of the impugned provision. The authors humbly submit that this vagueness has led to the application of different standards by the judiciary. Lastly, the authors discuss various provisions of law which deal with misconduct on the part of lawyers. The reason for discussing these provisions would be to argue that there already exist penal provisions in the law for misconduct by Bar and that the judiciary ought not to resort to contempt of court in every case.