INTRODUCTION
In the opinion of Oswald1 contempt of court may be said to be constituted by
any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect
or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigation or their witnesses during
the litigation.
In Halsbury’s2 it has been defined as “Any act done or writing published
which is calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt or to lower his authority or
to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the court is
contempt of court”
As per Corpus Juris3 Secondum the “contempt of court’’ is disobedience to the
court by acting in opposition to the authority to the authority justice and dignity
therefore. It signifies a willful disregard or disobedience of the court order. It is also
signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the
administration of law into disrespect
The contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines contempt of Court for the first time.
Before it there was no statutory definition for that. The contempt of Courts Acts 1971
is not a definition but only the classification or categories of contempt of courts.
Actually the contempt of court, cannot be defined exhaustively. It is therefore
better to leave it to the court to deal with each case as it comes and a right of appeal in
all cases of contempt will cure whatever defect there may be in the application of the
law section 19 of the contempt of court act 1971 provide a right of appeal and thus,
the defect (if any) in the application of law may be cured in the appeal.
Contempt of court is not binding a workable definition will be of much utility
not only for the judges but also for the general public. It helps the public to
understand what amounts to the contempt of court.
1
Contempt of court P 6 (3rd edition)
2
Halsubury , Laws of England Vol.8 P.7 (3rd edition)
3
Corpus Juris Secondum Vol.17 PP 5 and 6
If a person induces or abets other person to interfere in the administration of
justice e, he will be held liable for contempt of court.
To constitute contempt it is not necessary to find that there has been actual
interference with the administration of justice. If the act complained of is calculated to
or tends to cause such interference it may be taken as contempt of court.
In short contempt of court may be defined as an act or omission which
interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of justices.
CRITICISM
Suppose some crime on offence of beating as women in public place like road
other than a place like court, the punishment attracted is vide CRPC section 354
which deals with out raging modesty of woman and can be sentenced for a minimum
of one year and maximum for five years and fine. Police can arrest him without the
warrant.
Social Impact of contempt of court cases and punishment
Contempt of Court Act 1971 is too broad and Vague and can be used to limit
freedom of speech and expression. For example the act has been criticized for being
used to punish journalists and media organizations for reporting on court
proceedings.
The act can be measured to shield the judiciary from criticism.
Act’s vide scope and the court’s Suo Motu powers to initiate proceedings may
complicate the matter.
Acts conflicts with India’s democratic system which recognizes freedom of
speech and expression as a fundamental right. under article 19.
CONCLUSION
Contempt law is not violative of Article 14. The object of contempt of law is
not to provide protection to the judges personally but to protect public confidence in
the system of administration of justice . It’s purposes is to uphold majesty of the law
and administration of justice which is necessary for the existence of orderly of the
society. On account of this object the contempt proceedings have been classified as
proceedings of a class by themselves with a procedure of their own.
The punishment imparted for contempt is not only for the personal protection
of judges but for the protection of public justice necessary for the existence of the
orderly society. Hence the procedure providing for summary trial cannot be said as
violative of Article 14.
When the makers of the constitution inserted Article 129 and 215 recognizing
the power of supreme court or high courts as court of records to punish for contempt
of courts they do not define expression “contempt of court’’.
In such condition the opening words of article 366 containing the saving
phrase “unless the context otherwise requires’’ become operative and it may be
concluded that in the context of contempt of court the phrase of English law in Article
19 (2) includes not only statutory law but the entire law of contempt as was
recognized in India prior to the constitution of India based on English common law
and in deu of high courts and privy council.
Section 3 of the contempt of court act 1952 or section 10 of the contempt of
section 1971 and clause (38) of the letter patent make it clear that the procedure in
contempt has statutory recognition consequently. It cannot be said that contempt Law
is violative of Article 21.
Summary procedure of contempt cases had been in vogue prior to
commencement of constitution has recognized by court is also the procedure
establishment by law in Article 21 and Article 225 of the constitution of India is in
proviso for their continuity.
Article 372(1) includes not only statutory law but also custom law or any
matter of procedure which was prevalent in India and duly recognized by the court
although it was not enacted by the Legislature. The expression “Law in force’’ thus
includes summary proceedings in contempt prevalent in India before the
commencement of the constitution of India.
The contempt of law is not violative of any of the constitutional provision and
it is thus constitutionally valid .
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
Parties to the case
Amith Chanchal Jha (Appellant)
Vs
Registrar High Court of Delhi (Respondent)
Court
In the Supreme Court of India
Citation (2015) 13 SCC 288
Case No.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 864-865 of 2012
Decided on 12-12-2014
Category of case
CONTEMPT OF COURT MATTERS – APPEALS U/S 19(1) (B) of Contempt of
court Act 1971
Appeal filed against criminal contempt No.1 of 2012 and order dated 16
January 2012 in criminal miscellaneous No.753 of 2012, of the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi.
