The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a central government act in India that deals with the law of
contempt of court.

The Act is called the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and it extends to the whole of India.
However, it does not apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, except to the extent to which the
provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.

"Contempt of court" includes civil contempt and criminal contempt

Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court if they have published or distributed any matter
that interferes with the course of justice in connection with a civil or criminal proceeding, provided
they had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.

Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt

It is not considered contempt of court to publish a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding
or any stage thereof.

Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt

This section provides that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair
comment on the merits of a case that has been heard and finally decided. This is very dubious,
since it is difficult to prove that a criticism is fair or not.

Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts

Every High Court has the jurisdiction, powers, and authority to deal with contempt of the courts
subordinate to it, similar to the powers it has in respect of contempt of itself.

Punishment for contempt of court

The Act specifies that contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for up to six
months, or with a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or with both. The court has the discretion
to discharge the accused or remit the punishment on an apology being made.

Contempt not punishable in certain cases

This section states that a court shall not impose a sentence for contempt of court unless it
substantially interferes with the due course of justice. It also allows justification by truth as a valid
defense in certain cases. Means one who publishes something which is true, it can't be taken as
interference.

Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

In the case of a criminal contempt, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its
own as well.

In Simpler Terms According to this law:

The Contempt of Courts Act is a law that deals with actions that disrespect or disobey the orders
and authority of the court. It helps maintain the respect and dignity of the courts in our country.

- If someone disrespects or disobeys the court, they can be punished. The punishment can be
simple imprisonment for up to six months (like going to jail), a fine of up to two thousand rupees
(like paying money), or both.
- However, if the person apologizes and the court is satisfied with the apology, they may be
forgiven and the punishment may be cancelled.
- If someone is found guilty of serious disrespect or disobedience to the court (called criminal
contempt), the court can give a longer prison sentence, but not more than two years, along with a
fine of up to two thousand rupees.
- The Supreme Court and High Courts have the same power and authority to deal with contempt
of their own courts as they have for the Supreme Court.
- There is no right to appeal against the orders or decisions of the Supreme Court or High Court in
contempt cases.
- Even judges, magistrates, or other people acting as judges can be punished for contempt if they
disrespect or disobey the court.
- Nobody can take legal action against a person who acts in good faith under this law.
- The law does not mean that actions that would not be considered contempt outside of this law
suddenly become contempt of court.
- The High Courts and Supreme Court have the power to make rules to regulate the practice and
procedure related to contempt cases.
- The Supreme Court can make rules with the approval of the President, and the High Courts can
make rules with the approval of the State Government.
- The Contempt of Courts Act repeals any previous laws on the same subject and contains
provisions to save any legal actions taken under those previous laws.

Civil Contempt
1. Civil contempt is when someone disobeys or breaks a court's order or doesn't do what they
promised to do in court.
2. For example, if someone doesn't follow a court's decision or breaks a promise they made to the
court, it is considered civil contempt.
3. Civil contempt is not as serious as criminal contempt.

Criminal Contempt
1. Criminal contempt is when someone does something that can harm or disrespect the court.
2. For example, if someone says or writes something that makes the court look bad or interferes
with a court case, it is considered criminal contempt.

2
3. Criminal contempt is more serious than civil contempt.

Differences
1. Civil contempt is about disobeying court orders or breaking promises to the court, while
criminal contempt is about disrespecting the court or interfering with its work.
2. Civil contempt is not as serious as criminal contempt.
3. In civil contempt, saying sorry and promising to follow the rules can sometimes make things
better, but in criminal contempt, even apologizing may not cancel the punishment.
4. For civil contempt, the person's intention or state of mind is important and needs to be proven,
but for criminal contempt, it's not necessary to prove their intention.

Case-1 Civil Contempt

In the case of "In Re: Prashant Bhushan," Prashant Bhushan, a well-known lawyer, posted two
tweets on Twitter that criticized the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice. The first tweet blamed the
Supreme Court for harming India's democracy, while the second tweet showed an image of the
Chief Justice on a motorcycle in a negative way. The Supreme Court took notice of these tweets
and started contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan.
Prashant Bhushan argued that the first petition against him was not properly sanctioned by the
Attorney General, as required by the law. He also claimed that his tweets were his way of
expressing concern about the functioning of virtual courts, which he believed were violating
people's fundamental rights. He argued that expressing such concerns should not be considered
contempt of court and should be protected under the right to free speech.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments. The Court stated that it had the
power to initiate contempt proceedings without the Attorney General's sanction. It also said that
any publication attacking judges or the court as a whole and casting defamatory perceptions on
their character could be considered as scandalizing the court. Such actions undermine public trust
and confidence in the judiciary.

3
The Court found that Prashant Bhushan's tweets did not offer fair criticism of the judiciary and
lacked a bona fide intention. As a result, the Court held him guilty of criminal contempt and
imposed a fine of one rupee. If he failed to pay the fine, he would face three months of
imprisonment and a three-year ban from practicing law.

Prashant Bhushan criticized the Supreme Court in his tweets, but the Court found that his criticism
went beyond fair limits and undermined the court's authority. The Court decided that his tweets
amounted to contempt of court, and he was fined and faced potential imprisonment and a ban
from practicing law.

Case-2 Civil Contempt

From a judgment related to the events surrounding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya,
India, on December 6, 1992. There were contempt proceedings initiated against the State of Uttar
Pradesh and its Chief Minister at that time, Sri Kalyan Singh, for willful disobedience of court
orders related to the acquisition of land in Ayodhya.
The land in question was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of developing it as an
amenity for pilgrims visiting Ayodhya. However, there were orders from the High Court and the
Supreme Court restricting construction activities on the land. The contempt proceedings alleged
that the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the leadership of Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, deliberately
flouted these orders. The defense argued that the constructions carried out on the land were
initially intended for leveling and facilitating pilgrim access, but later, the responsibility was taken
up by a large congregation of Sadhus (holy men), and the constructions were not permanent
structures. They claimed that any attempts to stop the constructions would have led to potential
conflicts and endangered the safety of the nearby disputed structure.