Module 7

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 23

CONTEMPT OF COURT

1.CONTEMPT OF COURT- ORGIN, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

Introduction-
In India, Judiciary is considered a prestigious institution that protects and ensures the
supremacy of law, protects individuals’ rights, settles conflicts, and prevents
democracy from becoming an authoritative or dictatorial regime.
To protect the dignity and authority of the Courts in India, the judicial system in India
has the authority to penalise any offenders who perform any such actions and can
restrict one’s right to freedom of speech on the grounds of Contempt of Court.
Contempt of court is a serious legal offence in India. It refers to any action or
behaviour that challenges, disobeys, or interferes with the authority or dignity of a
court.
The law of contempt is designed to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the judicial
system and to ensure that the court’s orders and judgments are respected and
followed.

What is Contempt of Court-


Contempt of court is broadly defined as any act or conduct that tends to lower the
authority of the court, scandalize or abuse its processes, or interfere with
the administration of justice.
In other words, any behaviour that obstructs or undermines the court’s authority or
hampers the smooth functioning of the judicial system can be considered
contemptuous.

Types of Contempt of Court


In India, contempt of court can be classified into two types: civil and criminal.
Civil contempt refers to the disobedience of any court order or breach of an
undertaking given to the court. For instance, if a person fails to comply with a court’s
order to pay a debt or to produce documents, it can be considered as civil contempt.
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is more serious and involves any action that
scandalizes the court or interferes with the administration of justice.
Examples of criminal contempt include insulting a judge, interfering with court
proceedings, or obstructing the course of justice in any way.

Punishments for Contempt of Court


The punishment for contempt of court varies depending on the nature and severity
of the offence. In civil contempt cases, the offender may be fined or imprisoned until
they comply with the court’s order. In criminal contempt cases, the punishment can
range from a simple reprimand or a fine to imprisonment for up to six months or
even more in some cases. In extreme cases, the court can also impose a sentence of
up to two years along with a fine.
Origin and development-
-The roots of Contempt of Court law in India can be traced back to the British colonial
era.
-As the East India Company established its dominion over India, it introduced English
legal principles, including the power to punish for contempt of court.
-This led to the establishment of the Mayor's Courts and later the Supreme Courts.
-These courts inherited the power to punish for Contempt from English common law.
-The British East India Company established Mayor's Courts in the Presidency towns
of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. These courts were empowered to punish for
contempt, laying the foundation for contempt proceedings in India.
The Indian High Courts Act of 1861 established High Courts in Calcutta, Madras, and
Bombay. These courts, as successors to the Supreme Courts, retained the power to
punish for contempt.

Post-Independence Era:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was the first
legislation governing Contempt in India. This Act recognized the existing jurisdiction
in all the High Courts to punish for Contempt of themselves and conferred on the
High Court's the power to punish for Contempt of Courts subordinate to it. The Act
also specified the upper limit of the punishment that can be imposed for the said
Contempt.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1952: This Act expanded the jurisdiction of High Courts to
include contempt of Courts of Judicial Commissioners and Chief Courts and further
clarified and defined the powers of the courts to punish for Contempt.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:


This Act, the current legislation, introduced significant changes:
-Categorized contempt into civil and criminal contempt.
-Defined the scope of contempt, emphasizing the need for substantial interference
with the course of justice.
-Provided exceptions for fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings and fair
comment on decided cases. It also provides for certain exceptions, such as fair and
accurate reporting of judicial proceedings, that would not attract Contempt
proceedings.
-Established a limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings.
Contempt of Court and its constitutional validity

The current Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a balanced framework for
protecting the judiciary's authority while safeguarding freedom of speech and
expression. It is crucial to maintain a balance between protecting judicial authority
and upholding fundamental rights.

Indian Constitution in its seventh schedule, provides in List I, that the Parliament has
exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters or subjects given in
list I.
Parliament and State legislature both have powers to make laws with respect to any
of the subject enumerated in List III (concurrent list) of the seventh schedule of the
constitution.
In the case of conflict between the law made by Parliament and the law made by the
State legislature, law made by the State legislature shall to the extent of the
repugnancy, be void.

The power of Parliament to legislate in relation to the law of contempt of courts


would have to be exercised in such a way that the purpose of the constitutional
provisions is not defeated.

In the case of Noordeen Mohammed v. A.K. Gopalan, the constitutional validity of


contempt of court was challenged.
It was held that the Contempt of Courts Act was valid as it did not contravene the
existing law of contempt when enacted.
In number of cases, issues were raised that whether contempt of court act satisfies
the twin test given in Article 14 of the Constitution i.e., the act is just fair and
reasonable and not arbitrary, fanciful, or evasive and whether the classification
satisfies this test and whether there is a relation (nexus) between the classification
and the object to be achieved.
As the existing law relating to Contempt of court imposes reasonable restrictions
within the meaning of Article 19(2) and therefore, it is not violative of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guarantee by Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution.

The Contempt of Court Act’s continuity is ensured by Article 255 of the Constitution,
while Section 10 of the Act grants every High Court the power to exercise jurisdiction,
powers, and authority in contempt cases. Thus, it can be concluded that the
Contempt of Court Act is constitutional and valid.
Arguments against Contempt of Court
Despite Constitutional validity and Supreme Court judgements, the act and concept
has been criticized on several arguments:
 Suppression of Freedom of Speech: Contempt of court laws can sometimes be
seen as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression. Critics argue that
these laws may discourage open criticism of the judiciary or hinder public
scrutiny of court proceedings, potentially impeding transparency and
accountability.
Disproportionate Punishments: The punishments for contempt of court can
vary widely, ranging from fines to imprisonment. Critics argue that in some
cases, the punishments imposed for contempt may be disproportionate to the
offense committed, leading to concerns of excessive punishment and potential
violations of human rights.
 Impediment to Fair Trials: Contemptuous behaviour by individuals involved in
a trial, can disrupt the proceedings and potentially impact the fairness of the
trial. However, critics argue that contempt of court laws should not be used as
a tool to suppress legitimate challenges or criticisms that may arise during a
trial.
It is important to note that contempt of court laws vary across jurisdictions, and the
application and implications of these laws can differ. The negative points mentioned
above are not universally applicable but highlight some concerns associated with
contempt of court in general.

Conclusion-

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is a crucial piece of legislation that safeguards the
integrity and independence of the judiciary.
It ensures that the administration of justice is not hindered by malicious attacks or
undue interference. However, it is essential to strike a balance between protecting
the judiciary and upholding fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech and
expression.

While the Act is constitutionally valid and necessary for the effective functioning of
the legal system, it is imperative to use it judiciously and avoid excessive or arbitrary
punishments. The courts must ensure that the application of contempt laws is fair,
just, and proportionate to the alleged offense.

In recent years, there have been growing concerns about the potential misuse of
contempt laws to stifle criticism and dissent.
It is therefore essential to maintain a transparent and accountable judiciary that is
open to public scrutiny and constructive criticism.
By striking the right balance between protecting judicial authority and upholding
fundamental rights, the Contempt of Courts Act can continue to serve its intended
purpose without compromising the principles of justice and fairness.
2. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Introduction
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, in an interview, explained that the authority
of constitutional courts to take action for contempt is meant to ensure the smooth
functioning of the courts, not to shield judges from criticism.
The Constitution grants authority to the Supreme Court and high courts to penalize
contempt, with the procedures outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In India, contempt of court is addressed under the Act of 1971, which defines and
prescribes punishment for contemptuous actions.
The primary objective is to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process, ensuring that
the judiciary's authority is respected and upheld.
Contempt of court is the offence of being disrespectful to the court of law. Being
impolite to legal authorities in the courtroom, or rebelliously failing to follow a court
order may draw Contempt of Court proceedings. A judge can levy sanctions such as a
penalty or prison for someone found guilty of contempt of court.

Definition of Contempt of Court


Contempt of court often referred to simply as “contempt”, is the offence of being
disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of
behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court.

When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an
order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization
to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority “held” in contempt.
That is the judge’s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the
court’s normal process.

Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as


injunctions. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to a subpoena, to testify, to
fulfil the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute
contempt of the court.

Punishment for Contempt of Court in India


Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of India are bestowed with the power
to punish for contempt of the court.
According to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt of court can be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Types of Contempt of Court


Contempt of court in India can be broadly categorized into two types:
civil contempt and criminal contempt.

Civil Contempt-
Civil contempt is a legal mechanism designed to compel obedience to court orders.
Civil contempt occurs when an individual or entity wilfully disobeys a judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or breaches an undertaking
given to the court. Essentially, it's a failure to comply with a court's directive.

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines civil contempt.
“Civil contempt” refers to wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, or other processes of a court, whereas criminal contempt involves actions that
scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tend to lower the authority of any
court.”

Key Characteristics of Civil Contempt


1. Civil in Nature: Civil contempt proceedings are primarily concerned with
securing compliance with court orders rather than punishing the offender.
2. Easier to enforce: The primary purpose of civil contempt is to make it easier
for the court to enforce its orders. The court may impose remedies such as
imprisonment or attachment of property until the order is obeyed.
3. Initiation: Civil contempt proceedings can be initiated by either the aggrieved
party or the court itself, suo motu.

The Mechanics of Civil Contempt


1. Notice: The court issues a notice to the alleged contemnor, specifying the
order that has been disobeyed and the reasons why the conduct is considered
contemptuous.
2. Show Cause Notice: The contemnor is given an opportunity to explain their
non-compliance. They may present reasons for their failure to comply, such as
inability to do so or genuine hardship.
3. Hearing: A hearing is conducted to determine whether the contemnor is guilty
of civil contempt. The court considers the evidence presented by both parties
and decides whether to impose a coercive remedy.
Aruna Roy v. Union of India is a landmark case highlighting the power of civil
contempt.
In this case, the Supreme court ordered the Central Government to take necessary
steps to implement the Right to Information Act, 2005.
These steps included the appointment of Information Commissioners, the
establishment of Information Commissions, and the formulation of rules and
regulations for the implementation of the Act.
The Central Government, however, failed to comply with the court's order in a timely
manner.
As a result, the Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against the concerned
officials. The court held that wilful disobedience of a court order, even if it is not a
direct order to an individual, can constitute civil contempt.
It held that the government's failure to implement the Right to Information Act,
which promotes transparency and accountability, was a serious violation of the
court's orders and a threat to the rule of law.
The government's inaction was seen as a serious violation of the court's authority
The court emphasized the significance of adhering to court orders, particularly when
they concern public interest.
This case highlights the seriousness with which the courts view civil contempt and
the importance of enforcing court orders, especially when they relate to matters of
public interest.

In conclusion, civil contempt is a powerful tool to enforce court orders and ensure
the rule of law. However, it must be used judiciously to avoid abuse and to protect
the rights of the accused. The courts must ensure that the process of initiating and
adjudicating civil contempt proceedings is fair and transparent.

Criminal Contempt

Under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971 “criminal contempt” means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;
Criminal contempt is a serious offense that undermines the dignity and authority of
the judiciary. Unlike civil contempt, which is primarily aimed at securing compliance
with court orders, criminal contempt is directed towards punishing the offender for
their misconduct.
Criminal contempt proceedings are comparable to criminal trials, with the
prosecution bearing the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. The penalties for criminal contempt can be severe, including imprisonment
and hefty fines.

In serious cases of criminal contempt, the court may impose imprisonment as a


punishment. This is typically reserved for instances where the contempt is
particularly persistent or harmful to the administration of justice.
Monetary fines are a common penalty for criminal contempt. The amount of the fine
is determined by the severity of the offense and the financial capacity of the
offender.
The court may order the contemnor to issue a public apology to the court or the
aggrieved party. This is often used to restore the dignity of the court and to deter
future misconduct. In some cases, the court may impose restrictions on the
contemnor's public activities, such as speaking or writing about certain topics.

The court may take cognizance of criminal contempt on its own motion, without the
need for a formal complaint. Criminal contempt proceedings may also be initiated
based on a complaint filed by an aggrieved party or a public prosecutor. The Attorney
General, as the chief legal advisor to the government, may also initiate criminal
contempt proceedings in certain cases, particularly those involving matters of public
interest.

1. In Re: Arundhati Roy 2002


Facts: Arundhati Roy, a renowned writer and activist, found herself at the centre of a
high-profile contempt of court case in 2002. Her writings and speeches, particularly
those criticizing the Supreme Court's judgment on the Narmada Dam project, were
deemed to be contemptuous by a section of the judiciary.

The Core Issue: Freedom of Speech vs. Judicial Authority


The case sparked a significant debate on the delicate balance between the right to
freedom of speech and expression and the need to protect the dignity and authority
of the judiciary. Roy's critics argued that her comments were disrespectful and could
undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the right to freedom of
speech and expression, held that the comments did not cross the line of criminal
contempt. The court emphasized that criticism of the judiciary, even if harsh, is
permissible as long as it does not scandalize or lower the authority of the court or
interfere with the administration of justice.
2.In Re: Prashant Bhushan 2020
Facts: Prashant Bhushan, a prominent lawyer and activist, made certain tweets that
were critical of the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India.
Prashant Bhushan, a prominent lawyer and activist, found himself in trouble in a
contempt of court case in 2020. His tweets, which were critical of the judiciary's
handling of certain cases and the conduct of some judges, were deemed to be
contemptuous by the Supreme Court.

The Prashant Bhushan case raised questions about the balance between the right to
freedom of speech and expression and the need to protect the dignity and authority
of the judiciary. The court had to determine whether Bhushan's tweets, though
critical, crossed the line into contemptuous behaviour.

Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court held that while the tweets were critical, they did
not cross the line of criminal contempt. However, the court imposed a token fine on
Bhushan for his conduct. This was likely done to underscore the importance of
respecting the judiciary and to deter future misconduct. It was also a subtle reminder
that while criticism is permissible, it must be constructive and respectful.

Conclusion
The law of contempt seeks to balance the right to freedom of speech and expression
with the need to protect the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
It is essential to ensure that criticism of the judiciary is allowed, as it promotes
transparency and accountability.
However, such criticism should not be malicious or aimed at undermining the
administration of justice.
It is important to ensure that the law of contempt is not used to dismiss legitimate
criticism or to intimidate those who seek to hold the judiciary accountable.
By striking a balance between these competing interests, the law of contempt can
contribute to a fair, just, and independent judiciary.
3. DEFENCES
(write meaning of contempt, definition of contempt, define civil and criminal)

The Law of Contempt is quasi-criminal and it results in penal consequences.


Therefore, it becomes a matter of necessity that a person against whom proceedings
for contempt have been initiated must be armed with certain defences.

As per section 12 (1) of the Act, the accused may be discharged or the punishment
awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
An apology can mitigate the consequences of contempt of court, but it's not a
guaranteed solution.
The court's decision depends on factors like the severity of the contempt, the timing
and sincerity of the apology, and public interest.
A timely, genuine, and unconditional apology, coupled with remedial steps, can
increase its effectiveness.
However, the court has the final say in determining the appropriate punishment
considering all the factors.
The defences are available to a contemnor under section 3 to section 8 and section
13 of Contempt of Court's Act, 1971.
The defences are divided into civil and criminal defence and are as follows-

Defences in Criminal Contempt

1. Innocent Publication and Distribution of Matter (Section 3)


If a person can prove that they had no reasonable grounds to believe that a judicial
proceeding was pending at the time of publication or distribution, they may be
absolved from liability.
If the proceeding in question was not actually pending at the time of publication, the
person cannot be held liable for contempt.

2. Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceedings (Section 4)


Publishing a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings or any stage thereof is
generally not considered contempt.
However, any deviation from accuracy or fairness can lead to liability.
This defence does not extend to proceedings held in chambers, unless authorized by
law or the court itself.

3. Fair Criticism of Judicial Act (Section 5)


Fair criticism of judicial decisions and conduct is permissible, as long as it is based on
facts, is not malicious, and does not impute corrupt motives.
The court must balance the right to criticize with the need to protect the dignity and
authority of the judiciary.

4. Bonafide Complaint Against Presiding Officer of Subordinate Court (Section 6)


A person may make a bona-fide complaint against a presiding officer of a subordinate
court to a higher court without fear of contempt.
The complaint must be made in good faith and should not be malicious or intended
to interfere with the administration of justice.

5. No Substantial Interference with the Due Course of Justice (Section 13)


Even if an act or publication could potentially interfere with the course of justice, if it
does not actually cause substantial interference, it may not be considered contempt.
The truth of the statement can be a defence, especially if it is relevant to the
proceedings and is made in good faith.

6. Defamation of a Judge Personally


If a publication or act is merely a personal attack on a judge and does not interfere
with the administration of justice, it may not be considered contempt.
The judge may seek remedies for defamation through civil or criminal proceedings,
rather than invoking contempt powers.

Defences in Civil Contempt

1. Lack of Wilful Disobedience


A key element of civil contempt is the wilful disobedience of a court order.
If the contemnor can demonstrate that they did not intentionally disobey the order,
they may be absolved from liability.
If there were reasonable grounds for non-compliance, such as financial hardship,
illness, or other legitimate reasons, the contemnor may be excused. The burden of
proof lies on the contemnor to establish these grounds.
It can be pleaded that although disobedience or breach of the order has taken place
but it was due to accidental, administrative or other reasons beyond the control of
the party concerned. This plea can be successful only when the order has been
complied with and a reasonable explanation has been given for non- compliance
thereof.

2. Order Passed Without Jurisdiction:


If the order whose contempt is alleged, has been passed by a court which had no
jurisdiction to pass it, the disobedience or violation would not amount to contempt
of court for the reason that the order passed without jurisdiction is a void order and
binds nobody.
If, the court that issued the order, lacked the legal authority or jurisdiction to do so,
the order is considered void.
In such cases, non-compliance with such a void order cannot be considered
contempt.
The contemnor may challenge the jurisdiction of the court to issue the order through
appropriate legal procedures.
3. Vague and Ambiguous Order
If the order passed by court is vague or ambiguous or its not specific or complete, it
would be a defense in the contempt or alleged contemnor can raise a plea in defense
that the order whose contempt is alleged cannot be complied with as the same is
impossible.
If the court order is unclear, ambiguous, or contradictory, it may be difficult to
determine the exact requirements of the order. In such cases, the contemnor may
argue that their non-compliance was due to the ambiguity of the order.
The contemnor may argue that they acted in good faith based on a reasonable
interpretation of the order, even if it differs from the court's intended meaning.

4. Impossible Compliance
If the order is impossible to comply with, such as requiring a person to perform an
act that is physically impossible or beyond their control, the contemnor cannot be
held liable for non-compliance.
However, mere subjective difficulties or inconvenience are generally not sufficient to
excuse non-compliance.

5. Lack of Knowledge of the Order


If the contemnor was not aware of the court order, they cannot be held liable for
non-compliance.
However, the contemnor must take reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of
any court orders that may affect them.
If the contemnor deliberately avoids service of the order or takes steps to prevent its
service, they may be held liable for contempt.

6. Alternative Remedies Available


If there are other legal remedies available to challenge or modify the court order,
such as appeals or revisions, the contemnor may be expected to pursue those
remedies before resorting to non-compliance.
The contemnor must exhaust all available legal remedies before resorting to non-
compliance as a defense against contempt.

7. Order involves more than on reasonable interpretation-


If the order whose contempt is alleged involves more than one reasonable and
rational interpretation and the respondent adopts one of them and acts in
accordance with one such interpretation, he cannot be held liable for contempt of
court. However, this defense is available only when a bonafide question of
interpretation arises.

CONCLUSION- It is important to note that the burden of proof lies on the contemnor
to establish these defences. The court will carefully examine the facts and
circumstances of each case to determine whether the defense is valid.
4. PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT
(write meaning of contempt, definition of contempt, define civil and criminal)

Punishment for Contempt of Court


Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 outlines the punishments for
contempt of court.
Types of Punishment
1.Imprisonment:
Simple Imprisonment: The court may impose simple imprisonment for a maximum
term of six months. This is the general punishment for both civil and criminal
contempt.
Detention in Civil Prison: In cases of civil contempt, where a fine is deemed
insufficient, the court may order detention in a civil prison for a maximum of six
months.

2.Fine: The court may impose a fine of up to Rs. 2,000.

3.Both Imprisonment and Fine: The court may impose both imprisonment and a fine.

Additional Considerations
Conditional Apology: The court may discharge the accused or remit the punishment if
a bona fide apology is made.
Maximum Sentence: No court can impose a sentence exceeding the limits specified in
Section 12.
Corporate Contempt: When a company is found guilty of contempt, individuals
responsible for the company's conduct may also be held liable.

Period of Limitation
Section 20 of the Act sets a one-year limitation period for initiating contempt
proceedings. This means that no court can initiate contempt proceedings after one
year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Timing of Limitation Period:
-Criminal Contempt: The limitation period starts from the date of the contemptuous
act.
-Civil Contempt: The limitation period starts from the date of service of the court
order, or three months from the date of the order if no specific time is mentioned.
-Suo Moto and Petition-Based Proceedings: The one-year limitation applies to both
types of proceedings.

Conclusion
The Contempt of Courts Act provides a robust framework to uphold the dignity and
authority of the judiciary. The prescribed punishments, including imprisonment and
fines, prevents the acts that undermine the administration of justice. However, the
court's power to punish for contempt is to be exercised judiciously.
5. REMEDY FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT

Following remedies are available against the punishment order under Contempt of
Court Act:

A] Apology
As outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a sincere apology can lead to a
reduction or remission of punishment. However, the court's acceptance of an
apology is contingent on several factors:

1.Timing: A timely apology, made at the earliest opportunity, is more likely to be


favourably considered. Apologies tendered at the eleventh hour, especially when the
court is about to impose punishment, may be viewed with scepticism.

2.Sincerity: The apology must be accompanied by a genuine sense of remorse and


regret. The court may reject an apology if it perceives insincerity or a mere attempt
to avoid punishment.

3.Nature of Contempt: In cases of grave contempt, an apology alone may not suffice.
The court may still impose a punishment, even if the apology is sincere. For less
serious contempt, a sincere apology may be sufficient to mitigate the punishment.

4.Previous Conduct: If the contemner has a history of contempt, the court may be
less inclined to accept an apology. For first-time offenders, a sincere apology may be
more readily accepted.

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: This case highlighted that apology should not be used
as a defence mechanism to avoid punishment. It should be a genuine expression of
remorse.

B] Appeal:
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a statutory right to appeal against High
Court orders related to contempt of court.
Appeals can be filed against High Court orders to either a larger Bench within the
same High Court or directly to the Supreme Court.
Pending appeal, the appellate court can suspend the punishment, release the
appellant on bail, or hear the appeal regardless of whether the contempt has been
purged.
The High Court can grant interim relief to an aggrieved person intending to appeal.
Appeals must be filed within 30 days (High Court Bench) or 60 days (Supreme Court)
of the order.
6. INITIATION OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
(write meaning of contempt, definition of contempt, define civil and criminal)

Initiation of the proceeding-

Anyone can file a complaint against a person who has made scandalizing remarks or
otherwise stood in contempt against the judiciary. Section 15(1)(b), Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
However, the contempt proceeding only happens between the court and the alleged
offender. The complainant is only an informer, whose duty ends after informing the
court. It is open to the court to determine whether or not to act on such information
and thereby initiate contempt proceedings.

Section 10 of the Contempt of Court deals with the Power of High Court to punish
contempt of subordinate courts.
Section 11 deals with the Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders
found outside jurisdiction.
Section 14 of the Contempt of Court deals with the procedure of contempt
proceeding in the face of a Supreme Court or High Court
Section 15 of this Act deals with the procedure of the contempt proceeding in other
cases.

Procedure To Be Adopted in Contempt Proceedings

Section 14 of the contempt of court act deals with the procedure of contempt of
Supreme Court or High Court, whereas section 15 deals with the procedure in cases
other than in the face of court of record.
Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court and article 215 provides that every High
Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including
to punish for its contempt.
These court of records have inherent power to punish for contempt and therefore
these court of records can deal with such matter summarily and can adopt their own
procedure.

While exercising the contempt jurisdiction, it is necessary for such court of record
that the procedure adopted must be fair and reasonable in which full opportunity
should be given to the alleged contemner to defend himself.
No person should be punished for the contempt unless a specific charge against him
is distinctly stated and he is given a reasonable opportunity to answer it and to
defend himself against such charge.

The contempt proceedings are neither civil proceedings nor criminal. They are sui
generis.
Consequently, contempt proceedings will neither be governed by Civil Procedure
Code nor by Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the provisions of Indian Evidence Act
will not be attracted in the contempt proceedings.
The “contempt of court” including the criminal contempt is not an offence within the
meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore a procedure prescribed by
Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation, enquiry and trial of the offence is not
required to be followed in contempt proceedings.

The contempt of court and the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to
initiate proceedings for contempt and pass punishment orders, is a special
jurisdiction which is inherent in all the courts of record.
Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly excludes special jurisdiction
from the scope of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Procedure To Be Adopted in Cases of Contempt in The Face of The Court

Section 14 deals with contempt in the face of the Supreme Court and High Courts
and it provides that whenever it appears to the Supreme Court and the High Courts
that a person appears to have committed contempt in its presence or hearing the
court may cause such person to be detained in custody.
And shall at any time before the rising of the court on the same day or as early as
possible, thereafter-
1. Cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged.
2. Give him an opportunity to make his defence in respect of the charge.
3. After taking such evidence as may be offered by such person and after hearing him
proceed either forthwith or after adjournment to determine the matter of the
charge.
4. Make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be
necessary.

If someone is accused of contempt of court and wants to be tried by a different


judge, they can ask the court for the same either orally or in writing. If the court
thinks it's fair to allow this request, they'll send the case to the Chief Justice. The
Chief Justice will then decide which judge should handle the case.

However, it shall not be necessary for the judge or Judges in whose presence or
hearing the contempt is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness
before the Court where the matter has been referred.
The statement of facts of the case written by the judge or Judges while referring the
matter to the Chief Justice shall be treated as evidence in the case.
In Sukhdev Singh vs. Teja Singh, the Supreme Court observed that if the judge has
been personally attacked, he should not, as far as possible, hear the contempt matter
and should refer the matter to Chief Justice for nomination of some other Court, or,
on the application of the person aggrieved.
This is necessary keeping in view the principle of law that no one should be a judge in
his own cause, and, secondly justice should not only be done, but it must appear to
have been done.

In those cases, where the Contemnor has been detained in custody, during the
pendency of the Contempt case, he may be released on Bail or on furnishing bond
with or without sureties, that he shall continue to attend the Court proceedings.

Procedure of Criminal Contempt Committed Outside the Court

Section 15 deals cognizance of contempt in other case.


Section 15(1) deals with cognizance of criminal contempt by courts of record whereas
Section 15(2) deals with criminal contempt of sub-ordinate courts.

Section 15(1) provides that cognizance for criminal contempt can be taken by the
Supreme Court and High Courts in the following manner:
i. On its own motion
ii. On the motion of the Advocate General
iii. On the motion of any other person, with the consent, in writing, of the Advocate
General.
iv. On the motion of such law officer in relation to the High Court for the Union
Territory of Delhi as the central government may notify.

Section 15(2) provides that in case of criminal contempt of a sub-ordinate court, the
concerned High Court may take action in the following manner:
i. On the reference made to it by the sub-ordinate court.
ii. On the motion made by the Advocate General.
iii. On the motion made by such law officer in relation to a Union Territory as the
Central Government may specify.

Section 15(3) provides that every motion or reference shall specify the contempt of
which, the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

The expression ‘advocate general’ in this section means the following:


1 In relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the solicitor general.
2. In relation to a High Court, the Advocate General of the states for which High Court
has been established.
3.In relation to the court of judicial commissioner, such law officer as the central
government may specify.
Section 16 Contempt by judges, magistrates, and other judicial officers are subject to
the same contempt laws as ordinary individuals. They can be held liable for contempt
of their own court or any other court.
The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, apply to judicial officers in the
same way they apply to non-judicial persons.
However, this section does not apply for observations or remarks made by a higher
court judge or magistrate while reviewing the decision of a lower court.

Section 17- In cases of contempt committed outside the court and if the contempter
isn't present in the court, a notice is to be served on him as per section 17 which
deals with this procedure.
It provides that notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served
personally on the person charged unless the court for reasons to be recorded, directs
otherwise.

The notice shall be accompanied:


1. In case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by the copy of the motion along
with affidavit and material on which such motion is founded.
2. In case of proceedings on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the
reference.

If the court is of the opinion that the person charged under section 15 is likely to
abscond or is likely to avoid the service of notice, the court may order the attachment
of the property of such person.
However, the court may release the property from attachment if the person appears
and satisfies the court that he did not abscond or avoid the courts notice.

Any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in support
of his defence and the court may decide the charge of contempt on the basis of his
affidavit or after taking such evidence as may be necessary.

Section 18- Any case involving criminal contempt (as defined in Section 15) must be
heard and decided by a bench of at least two judges.
This requirement doesn't apply to the courts of Judicial Commissioners.

Section 19- Appeals


If a single judge of the High Court issues a contempt order, an appeal can be filed to a
bench of at least two judges of the same High Court.
If a bench of the High Court issues a contempt order, an appeal can be filed directly
to the Supreme Court.
An appeal against an order of a Judicial Commissioner can also be filed directly to the
Supreme Court.
If the appeal is pending, the appellate court can order a stay of the punishment or
release the appellant on bail.
The appellate court can hear the appeal even if the appellant hasn't eliminated the
contempt.
If a person intends to appeal a contempt order, they can request the High Court for
interim relief like a stay of execution or bail.
Appeals must be filed within 30 days for appeals to a High Court bench and 60 days
for appeals to the Supreme Court.

Section 20: Limitation for Contempt Actions


No court can start contempt proceedings, either on its own or based on a complaint,
after one year from the date the alleged contempt occurred.

CONTEMPT BY JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, LAWYERS, COMPANIES AND OTHERS

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted to define and limit the powers related
to the contempt of courts in India.
It ensures that the judiciary maintains its dignity and authority while balancing the
freedom of speech and expression. Contempt can be broadly categorized into civil
contempt and criminal contempt:
-Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or
other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
-Criminal Contempt: Acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court, interfere
with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.

Provisions Relating to Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers, Companies, and


Others:

1. Contempt by Judges and Magistrates:


-Accountability: Judges and magistrates are expected to act within the boundaries of
their judicial powers. If they act outside their jurisdiction or in a manner that
undermines the authority of the court, they can be held accountable for contempt.
-Safeguards: The Act ensures that while judges and magistrates are shielded to some
extent due to their judicial roles, they are not above the law. If a judicial officer shows
willful disregard for lawful court orders or acts in a way that disrespects the authority
of a higher court, they may face contempt charges.
-Section 16 of the Act: This section specifically states that a judge, magistrate, or
other person acting judicially can be guilty of contempt of their own or a superior
court if they engage in conduct that scandalizes or diminishes the authority of the
court.

2. Contempt by Lawyers:
-Professional Conduct: Lawyers are officers of the court and are required to uphold
the dignity of the judicial process. If they engage in behaviours that disrupts the
functioning of the court or disrespects the authority of judges, they can be charged
with contempt.
-There have been instances where lawyers have been penalized for contempt due to
willful obstruction of proceedings, making disparaging comments about judges, or
participating in actions that undermine the court's authority.
-While lawyers have the right to critique court judgments in good faith, any conduct
that oversteps this boundary and harms the reputation or dignity of the court can
lead to contempt charges.

3. Contempt by Companies:
-Corporate Accountability: Companies, through their officers or directors, can be held
in contempt if they fail to comply with court orders. The Act allows the court to hold
the responsible individuals, such as managing directors or principal officers,
accountable for the actions of the company.
-Nature of Contempt: If a company disobeys a court order—such as failing to comply
with an injunction or not providing information required by the court—this
constitutes civil contempt. Criminal contempt charges could apply if company
representatives engage in actions that obstruct justice or demean the court's
authority.

4. Contempt by Other Individuals:


Any person, whether an individual citizen, journalist, or public figure, who acts in a
manner that disrespects the court or its proceedings can be charged with contempt.
This includes publishing articles or making public statements that scandalize the
court or interfere with the judicial process.
The Act provides certain defenses, such as truth as a valid defense if it is in the public
interest and not intended to harm the administration of justice.

CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT, SUBORDINATE COURT

1. Contempt of Supreme Court


-Constitutional Authority: Article 129 of the Indian Constitution declares the Supreme
Court as a “court of record,” giving it the power to punish for its contempt.
The Supreme Court has the authority to act independently to ensure that its dignity
and functioning are protected.
Direct Punishment: The Supreme Court can initiate suo motu proceedings for
contempt and impose penalties, including fines and imprisonment up to six months,
or both, under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court can also hear appeals regarding contempt
cases decided by High Courts.

2. Contempt of High Court


Article 215 of the Indian Constitution states that every High Court is a “court of
record” with the power to punish for its contempt. This includes both civil and
criminal contempt.
High Courts have original jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings within their
territorial limits. This jurisdiction extends to acts of contempt committed in relation
to subordinate courts under their jurisdiction
The High Court can punish individuals for contempt with similar penalties as outlined
in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, including imprisonment and fines.
High Courts can exercise contempt jurisdiction over subordinate courts and take
action.

3. Contempt of Subordinate Courts


Under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, High Courts have the power
to address and punish contempt committed in relation to subordinate courts.
Subordinate courts themselves do not have direct contempt jurisdiction but rely on
the High Court to take action.
The Act ensures that the dignity and functioning of subordinate courts are protected
by empowering the High Court to punish acts that scandalize, prejudice, or interfere
with their proceedings or administration of justice.
Subordinate courts may report contempt cases to the High Court, which can then
initiate proceedings to safeguard the lower judiciary's integrity and authority.

Key Provisions and Punishment

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that contempt can be punished
with imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. However, if the
accused makes an apology that the court deems genuine, it may be accepted as a
mitigating factor.
Limitation Period: Section 20 of the Act stipulates that no court shall initiate
contempt proceedings after the expiration of one year from the date on which the
contempt is alleged to have been committed.

Conclusion

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the Supreme Court, High Courts, and
indirectly, subordinate courts to uphold their authority and ensure that justice is
administered without obstruction.
This framework maintains the dignity and independence of the judiciary, ensuring
respect for court orders and the smooth functioning of the legal system.
Through its provisions, the Act reinforces the idea that while courts strive for justice,
any actions undermining their authority will not be tolerated.

You might also like