CONTEMPT OF COURT

DR. ANITA YADAV

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
CAMPUS LAW CENTRE
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
QUESTIONS

• What do you understand by Contempt?

• What is the need for Contempt of Court?
• Meaning of the word ‘Contempt’ - ‘disrespect’.
• Showing disrespect to the dignity or authority of a court.
• Halsbury’s Law of England defined “contempt of court” states: “Any act done or
writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a 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 a contempt of court. Any episode in the administration of justice may,
however be publicly or privately criticised, provided that the criticism is fair and
temperate and made in good faith. The absence of any intention to refer to a court is
a material point in favour of a person alleged to be in contempt.
Source- Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn., Vol. 8)
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

• The origin of the law of Contempt in India can be traced from the English law
• In 1867, Peacock C.J. laid down the rule regarding the power to punish for
contempt quite broadly In Re : Abdool and Mahtab, (1913)
• “there can be no doubt that every court of record has the power of
summarily punishing for contempt.”
• The Contempt of Court Act, 1926 was the first statute in India with relation to law
of contempt.

• Source: 274th Report of Law Commission of India

CONT…

• The Act of 1926 was repealed and replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
• On April 1, 1960, a Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha to consolidate and
amend the law relating to contempt of court. Observing the law on the subject to
be “uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory”,
• After the aforesaid deliberations the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which repealed
and replaced the Act 1952.
CONTEMPT OF COURT IN UNITED KINGDOM

• In England , the primary legislation relating to contempt of courts is the Contempt

of Court Act, 1981, which deals with civil and criminal contempt.
• In 2012, the Law Commission of United Kingdom published a paper on contempt
powers, in which it expressly recommended abolishing the offence of
‘scandalising the Court’ as a ground for criminal contempt. Its
recommendations were accepted, and the said offence stood abolished in 2013,
by an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill.

Source: 274th Report of Law Commission of India

 CONTEMPT OF COURT IN USA

• The law in the United States also categorises contempt of court under the heads
of civil and criminal - where if a contemnor is to be punished criminally, then the
contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The American jurisprudence appears to be placing greater emphasis on
freedom of speech.
• In UK and USA the contempt jurisdiction particularly in relation to “scandalising the
court” has been regarded as anachronistic and exercised very sparingly.
INDIAN CONSTITUTION- CONTEMPT OF COURT

• The law of contempt is one of the recognized exception under Article 19 (2)
• The right to free expression cannot be equated with a license to make unfounded
and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary.
• Article 129 “The Supreme Court of India shall be a court of record and shall
have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt
of itself”.
• Article 215 “High Courts to be courts of record Every High Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself”.
CONT…

• Constitution does not define the term “court of record”,

1. Proceedings are enrolled for a “perpetual memory and testimony”.
2. Power to punish for its own contempt
3. Power to determine the question of its own jurisdiction.
Article 121 of the Constitution prohibits discussion by the members of the
Parliament of the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of High Court in
the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the
President praying for the removal of the Judge as provided under Article 124…
CONT..

• Article 141. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India.
• Article 142 Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such
decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any
cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be
prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that
behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe….
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971
Kinds of Contempt of Court
Section 2 (a) “Contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

Criminal Civil
Contempt Contempt
DEFINITION

• Sec 2 (b) “Civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;
• Sec 2 (c) “Criminal contempt”
• Three forms:
1. Words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to
scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court;
2. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
3. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;
Important provisions

• Section 3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt.

• Section 4. Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt.
• Section 5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt.—A person shall not be guilty
of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case
which has been heard and finally decided.
• Section 10- Contempt of subordinate courts.
• It empowers the High Court to “exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and
authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of
contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt
of itself”
 Important provisions
• 12. Punishment for contempt of court.
• A contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
• Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the Court.

• In 2006, Parliament amended the Contempt of Courts Act and introduced Truth as an defence
• Section 13 Clause (b) states that the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court,
justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request
for invoking the said defence is bona fide.
Section 16 Contempt by a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially. A judge, magistrate or other person
acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other
individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.
Example- Justice C.S. Karnan was sent to jail for six months for calling out corrupt judges
OBJECTIVES-
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS
IMPORTANT
• Brahma Prakash Sharma V. State of UP AIR 1954 SC

➢Whether the reflection on the conduct or character of the judge will fall within the
limits of fair and reasonable criticism?
➢Whether it interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of
the law by such court?
➢Whether it tends to create apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the
integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge and to deter actual and prospective
litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice?
➢The question was whether the members of the Executive Committee of the Bar
Association had committed contempt of the court ?
CASE MATERIAL MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA V.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) & ORS. (2011) 11 SCALE 634
• Facts
• As per the factual matrix, Government of India on 28th March, 2001, issued a
notification introducing a new scheme to regulate the issuance and fixation of high
security number plates (H.S.N.P.) on the vehicles in India. For which the government
passed order on 22nd August, 2001 to implement. While this scheme sets security
measures and are issued for the security and safety of the people. It should be dealt
effectively and states should act to implement as soon as possible. The court gave six
months time to initiate and implement the scheme despite this, most of the states
failed. The State of Haryana was one of such states which hardly took any steps
for the implementation of HSNP.
ISSUES

• Whether there is intentional default on the part of

concerned officers of defaulting states?
• Whether the state transport authority of Haryana is liable
for the offence of contempt?
• Para 9. Under the Indian Law the conduct of the parties,
the act of disobedience and the attendant circumstances
are relevant to consider whether a case would fall under
civil contempt or a criminal contempt.
 JUDGEMENT

• Para 16. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Secretary, Transport and the
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the State of Haryana is guilty of willful
disobedience/non-compliance of the orders of this Court, particularly the orders dated 30th
November 2004, 7th April 2011 and 30th August 2011.
• Having found them guilty under the provisions of the 1971 Act and under Article 129 of the
Constitution of India, we punish the Secretary, Transport and Commissioner, State Road Transport
Authority of the State of Haryana as under : i) They are punished to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and
in default, they shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; ii) We
impose exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State of Haryana, which amount, at the first instance,
shall be paid by the State but would be recovered from the salaries of the erring officers/officials of the
State in accordance with law and such recovery proceedings be concluded within six months.
 The test to be applied on criminal contempt of court

• Whether it tends to create apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity,
ability or fairness of the Judge and to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing
complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice?
• Test of erosion of Public Confidence
• Case- D. C. Saxena V Chief Justice of India 1996 SC
• Supreme court held that libel against a Judge can constitute criminal contempt, if the
imputation is of such gravity that it erodes public confidence.
 Case- Narmada bachao andolan V. Union of India
1999 SCC
• Arundhati Roy contempt case 6 March, 2002
• Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi
• During the pendency of the writ petition this Court passed various order. By one of the
order, the Court permitted to increase the height of the dam to RL 85 meters which was
resented to and protested by the writ petitioners and others including the respondent
herein. The respondent Arundhati Roy, who is not a party to the writ proceedings,
published an article entitled "The Greater Common Good" which was published in Outlook
Magazine and in some portion [Link]
of a book written by her consider objectionable
 CONT..

• The court issued a suo motu notice to Roy, based on her reply to the first notice based on a
lawyer’s petition, which it had dismissed. In response to the notice in the suo motu case, Roy filed
an affidavit denying that she had attributed any improper motive to any particular judge and refuting
the allegation that she had scandalised the authority of the judiciary.
• Some portion of affidavit
• Roy had inferred in her affidavit that the notice indicated “a disquieting inclination on the part of
the court to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree
with it.”
• “By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local police station does not see fit to act
upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm,”
 Good faith and in public interest test

• As already held, fair criticism of the conduct of a judge, the institution of the judiciary
and its functioning may not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in public
interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest, the courts have to see all
the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for
comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and
the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens cannot be permitted to
comment upon the conduct of the courts in the name of fair criticism which, if
not checked, would destroy the institution itself.
•
 CONT…

• In the instant case the respondent has not claimed to be possessing any special knowledge of
law and the working of the institution of judiciary. She has only claimed to be a writer of repute.
She has not claimed to have made any study regarding the working of this Court or judiciary in
the country and claims to have made the offending imputations in her proclaimed right of
freedom of speech and expression as a writer.
• Judgment
• As the respondent has not shown any repentance or regret or remorse, no lenient view should
be taken in the matter. She has committed the criminal contempt of this Court by scandalizing
its authority with malafide intentions. The respondent is, therefore, held guilty for the contempt
of court and sentence her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-.
CASE STUDY
Advocate Prashant Bhushan Contempt case
..

DO Not commit Contempt of

Court