MODULE VI

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

 INTRODUCTION
• Article 129 and Art.215 - Constitution of India
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
• Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect or defy the authority of a court.
• To offend the dignity of the court and lower the prestige of the court.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to punish for contempt.
• In Halsbury laws of England - “Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or
judge into contempt or lower his authority or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process
of the court is contempt of court”.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sec 2 (a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal
contempt;
• `Contempt' is an extraordinary jurisdiction of the Courts.
• This jurisdiction, at least suomoto, is invoked by the courts sparingly and in compelling
circumstances, as it is one of the foremost duty of the courts to ensure compliance of its orders.
• The law relating to contempt is primarily dissected into two main heads of jurisdiction under the
Indian Law: (a) Criminal Contempt, and (b) Civil Contempt.
• Constitution of India - Article 129 - The Supreme 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.
• Constitution of India - Article 215 - Every High Court Shall be court of record and shall I have
all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 142(2) - the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for the
purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any document, or
the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
• Entry 77 - Constitution, organization, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including
contempt for such a court) and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the
Supreme Court.
• Entry14 of list III - " contempt of court but not including contempt of Supreme Court ".
• The legislature is fully competent to legislate with respect to competent of court subject only to the
qualification that the legislature cannot take away the power of the Supreme Court or the High
Court to punish for contempt or vest that power in some other court.
 Civil & Criminal Contempt
• 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” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, 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;
 Civil Contempt
• In Vidya Sagar v. Third Aditional District Judge, Dehradun, 1991 Cr LJ
2286, it was held that Civil Contempt, actually, serves dual purpose:
• (i) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous
conduct; and
• (ii) Coercion to compel the contemner to do what the Court requires of
him.
• To constitute ‘Civil Contempt' the followings are required to be proved:
• 1. There is disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of
undertaking given to the Court; and
• 2. The disobedience or breach is willful.
 Re Ajay Kumar Pandey case
• Ajay Kumar Pandey, a practicing advocate, filed a criminal complaint against Advocate Mahesh Giri and Additional District
Judge Saroj Bala under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging defamation.
• This complaint was dismissed on November 16, 1994, and a subsequent criminal revision petition was also dismissed by the
High Court on February 15, 1995. The High Court observed that the prosecution appeared to be an attempt to disgrace and
harass the accused.
• Following these events, Pandey addressed letters to two Supreme Court judges and filed a criminal complaint against them,
actions which were deemed to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice. He filed frivolous and
baseless complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court, alleging corruption without evidence.
• In its judgment, the Court emphasized that while an advocate found guilty of contempt may also be guilty of professional
misconduct, it is the responsibility of the Bar Council to take appropriate disciplinary action, such as debarring or
suspending the advocate from practice.
• The Supreme Court held that the advocate's conduct undermined the dignity of the judiciary. He was found guilty of
contempt and barred from practicing as an advocate.
• It was held advocate using intemperate language against various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while
discharging there judicial function would be held guilty of contempt of court.
• Advocate was sentenced or punished to 4 months simple imprisonment and fine of rupees 1000/-.
 Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra [(1995)
2 SCC 584]
• Vinay Chandra Mishra, a senior advocate, misbehaved with a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court during court proceedings
• He threatened the judge with dire consequences and made derogatory remarks, attempting to intimidate the court.
• The conduct was deemed not only unprofessional but also amounted to criminal contempt of court, undermining the dignity and authority of the
judiciary.
• The Supreme Court held that Vinay Chandra Mishra's actions constituted criminal contempt of court as they scandalized the judiciary, undermined
its authority, and obstructed the administration of justice.
• The Court held that `judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive
and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land.
• This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the
society.
• Dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs’.
• The Court sentenced Mishra to two months of simple imprisonment and suspended his practice as an advocate for a period of three years.
D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India
(1996)
• D.C. Saxena, an advocate, filed multiple petitions and made several scurrilous, baseless, and
defamatory allegations against the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the judiciary.
• He alleged corruption and favoritism, claiming the judiciary was functioning improperly, but he could
not substantiate any of these claims
• The allegations were considered an attempt to scandalize the judiciary and obstruct the course of
justice. Making scandalous allegations against judges and the judiciary constitutes civil contempt.
• The Supreme Court held the advocate guilty of contempt, emphasizing that such baseless allegations
erode public confidence in the judiciary.
• D.C. Saxena was found guilty and sentenced to two months of simple imprisonment and a fine of
₹2,000
• In default of payment, he was to serve an additional 15 days of imprisonment.
• The Court clarified that contempt proceedings are a reasonable restriction to preserve judicial
independence and authority.
O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana,
AIR 2011 SC 2271

• An advocate was found guilty of fabricating court records

to favor his client.
• The Supreme Court held the advocate guilty of
misconduct and emphasized that tampering with court
records strikes at the core of the judicial system.
• The advocate was disbarred.
 Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.
Dabholkar (1975)
1. The respondent, M.V. Dabholkar, was an advocate practicing in Maharashtra.
2. A complaint was filed against him alleging professional misconduct under the Advocates
Act, 1961.
3. The disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council held that there was no professional
misconduct and dismissed the complaint.
4. The complainant then appealed to the Bar Council of India (BCI).
5. The BCI found Dabholkar guilty of professional misconduct and directed the removal of his
name from the roll of advocates.
6. Dabholkar appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the BCI’s order.
• The Supreme Court stated that advocates have a duty to uphold the integrity of the
judiciary. While this case focused more on professional misconduct, the principles apply to
contempt cases as well.
• Professional misconduct is not defined in the Advocates Act, 1961, but it includes acts that bring
disrepute to the legal profession or violate its ethical standards
• The Court observed that misconduct must be understood in the context of professional behavior expected
of advocates
• The Supreme Court highlighted that disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act are quasi-judicial in
nature
• They must be conducted fairly, and the advocate in question should have the opportunity to defend himself
• The Court emphasized the need for advocates to maintain high ethical standards and professional integrity,
as they play a crucial role in the administration of justice.
• Misconduct by an advocate not only affects their reputation but also undermines the trust of the public in
the legal profession
• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India, agreeing that the respondent, M.V.
Dabholkar, had committed professional misconduct. The Court directed the removal of his name from the
roll of advocates.
 C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice
A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995)
• Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, a sitting High Court judge,
faced allegations of misconduct made public by lawyers.
Advocates sought his resignation by circulating
defamatory material.
• The Supreme Court ruled that public attacks on judges by
advocates can damage the administration of justice and
held the advocates liable for criminal contempt.
• In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002)
• Facts: Though not an advocate, this case is often discussed in the
context of professional ethics, as Roy's comments against the judiciary
were supported by legal professionals. Advocates echoed and defended
her accusations against the Supreme Court.
• Issue: Publicly scandalizing the judiciary and lowering its authority
amounts to criminal contempt.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court sentenced Roy to a day’s imprisonment
and a fine, emphasizing that lawyers and public figures must not
encourage contemptuous behavior.
• In Re: C. S. Karnan (2017)
• Justice C.S. Karnan, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, made
public allegations against several judges, including the Chief Justice of
India. Some advocates supported his statements.
• Scandalizing the court and obstructing justice amounts to criminal
contempt.
• The Supreme Court sentenced Justice Karnan to six months'
imprisonment for criminal contempt and criticized lawyers who
endorsed his behavior, emphasizing the importance of maintaining
judicial discipline.
 P.J.Ratnam v. D.Kanikaram, AIR1964 SC 244

• Advocate P.J. Ratnam was accused of professional misconduct for drafting and
registering a will for one of his clients (a zamindar) and simultaneously making
himself a beneficiary under the same will.
• It was argued that this act of benefiting personally from the professional relationship
amounted to misconduct and a violation of professional ethics.
• The Supreme Court of India upheld the findings of the Bar Council, holding that
the advocate's actions amounted to professional misconduct.
• The Court emphasized that:
• An advocate must always uphold the highest standards of integrity and must not allow personal
interest to conflict with their duty towards the client.
• Making oneself a beneficiary under a will drafted and registered for a client creates a clear
conflict of interest and is unethical
 V.C.Rangadurai v. D.Goplan and others, AIR 1979 SC 201

• V.C. Rangadurai, an advocate, was accused of professional misconduct.

• The allegations were that Rangadurai misused funds entrusted to him by his
client, D. Goplan
• Specifically, he had retained the money meant for his client’s use and failed to
return it despite several requests.
• A complaint was filed before the State Bar Council, which held Rangadurai
guilty of professional misconduct.
• The Bar Council of India (BCI) also upheld this finding and ordered the
suspension of Rangadurai from practicing as an advocate for a certain period.
• Rangadurai appealed to the Supreme Court
• The Court reiterated that the legal profession requires advocates to adhere to the highest standards of ethics
and integrity.
• Misappropriation of client funds, even temporarily, constitutes professional misconduct as it breaches the
fiduciary duty owed by advocates to their clients.
• The judgment emphasized that an advocate is not only a representative of the client but also an officer of the
court and a participant in the administration of justice.
• Any conduct that undermines public trust in the legal profession cannot be condoned
• SC noted that Rangadurai had expressed remorse, returned the money, and promised not to repeat such
behavior.
• The Supreme Court modified the punishment imposed by the Bar Council of India.
• Instead of suspension, the Court directed that Rangadurai be reprimanded, allowing him to continue practicing
as an advocate while serving as a warning to others.
• The Supreme Court found Rangadurai guilty of professional misconduct but reduced the penalty from
suspension to reprimand. The Court considered the mitigating factors, such as his remorse, corrective actions,
and the relatively minor nature of the incident.
THE END