Contempt of Court

1. Meaning : This term Contempt of Court can be easily understood as

when we are disrespectful or disobedience towards the court of law
which means that we willfully fail to obey the court order or
disrespect the legal authorities. Then the judge has the right to impose
sanctions such as fines or can send the contemnor to jail for a certain
period of time if he is found guilty of Contempt of Court.

2. Articles in Constitution related to Contempt of Court:

Article 129 lays down that 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.

Article 142 (2) states that “subject to the provisions of any law made in
this behalf by Parliament” the Supreme Court shall have all and every
power to make any order on punishment of any 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.

Contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of

judicial forums.

3. Contempt of Court Act, 1971

According to Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt
of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2(b) of the
Act, defines “Civil Contempt” as willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach
of an undertaking given to a court. Section 2(c) of the Act, defines
“Criminal Contempt” as 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 act whatsoever which –
(i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower 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.
The above definition contained in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, is
not exhaustive. It merely indicates that the contempt may be civil
contempt or criminal contempt. It is thus better to leave it to the court to
deal with each case as it comes and a right of appeal under Section 19 of
Section the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in all cases of contempt will
cure whatever defect there may be in the application of the law. There are
several instances of the misconduct such as using insulting language
against the judge, suppressing the facts to obtain favourable order,
imputation of partiality and unfairness against the judge. A council who
advices his client to disobey the order of court is also held liable for
contempt of court. Attacking the judiciary in the bar council election is
taken as contempt of court. If the council refuses to answer the question
of the court is also liable for contempt of court.
Civil Contempt:
The purpose of the proceeding for the civil contempt is not only to punish
the contemner but also to exercise enforcement and obedience to the
order of the Court. 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.
Criminal Contempt:
Criminal Contempt: In India the definition of contempt of court is found
in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It
provides that "Criminal Contempt" means the publication whether by
words, spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or
otherwise of any matter of the doing of any act whatsoever which
scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower or tends to lower the authority
of any court, or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with
or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other
manner.

Difference Between Civil and Criminal Contempt

Civil Contempt Criminal contempt

1.Civil Contempt is defined in 1. Criminal Contempt is defined in
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 Courts Act, 1971;
2.Willful disobedience to any ii. The publication (whether by
judgment, decree, direction, order, words, spoken or written, or by
writ or other process of a Court or signs, or by visible representation
willful breach of an undertaking or otherwise) of any matter or the
given to a court, are regarded as doing of any other act whatsoever
civil contempt.
iii. Willfully disobeying the Court iii. The following act is the
orders or willfully breaching his criminal contempt’s: (a)
own undertaking are the civil scandalises, or tends to scandalise,
contempt; or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of, any Court; or (b)
prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of
any judicial proceeding; or (c)
interferes or tends to interfere
with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.”
4. It contains less seriousness; 4. It is more serious and
aggravated from of offence;
5. Apology is a good defence. In 5. In majority of the Criminal
Majority of the civil cases, the Contempt’s cases, the Courts
Courts satisfy if the contemnor accept the apology of the
gives an unconditional apology, contempt’s, but may not incline to
and also an undertaking to fulfill set aside the punishments. Only in
the obligation. genuine, old aged contemnors, the
Courts may show sympathy and
 may reduce the period of
imprisonment or post pone the
punishment or at least give
reprimand.

Defences to Civil Contempt

A person who is accused of Civil Contempt of case can take the following
defences:

Lack of Knowledge of the order: A person can not be held liable for Contempt
of Court if he does not know the order given by the court or he claims to be
unaware of the order. There is a duty binding on the successful party by the
courts that the order that has passed should be served to the Individual by the
post or personally or through the certified copy. It can be successfully pleaded
by the contemner that the certified copy of the order was not formally served to
him.
The disobedience or the breach done should not be : If someone is pleading
under this defence then he can say that the act done by him was not done
willfully, it was just a mere accident or he/she can say that it is beyond their
control. But this plead can only be successful if it found to be reasonable
otherwise your plead can be discarded.
The order that has disobeyed should be vague or ambiguous: If the order
passed by the court is vague or ambiguous or this order is not specific or
complete in itself then a person can get the defence of contempt if he says
something against that order. In R.N. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh [5],
this defence has been taken by the respondent. In this case, the Supreme Court
has directed the corporation of the respondent to restore the promotion of the
petitioner from a particular date in the service. But the respondent has not
produced the monetary benefit for the given period and a complaint was filed
against him for Contempt of Court. He pleads for the defence on the given
evidence that it has not mentioned by the court in order to pay the monetary
benefit. Finally, he gets the defence.
Orders involve more than one reasonable interpretation: If the contempt of
any order declared by the court and the order seems to be given more than one
reasonable and rational interpretation and the respondent adopts one of those
interpretations and works in accordance with that then he will not be liable for
Contempt of Court.
Command of the order is impossible: If compliance of the order is impossible
or it cannot be done easily then it would be taken as a defence in the case of
Contempt of Court. However, one should differentiate the case of impossibility
with the case of mere difficulties. Because this defence can be given only in the
case of the impossibility of doing an order.
The order has been passed without jurisdiction: If the order whose contempt
is alleged, has been passed by a court which had no jurisdiction to pass it, its
violation would not amount to contempt of court because an order passed
without jurisdiction is void.
Defences Against Criminal Contempt (Section 3 to 7 of the contempt of
Court Act 1971)
Innocent publication and distribution of matter.
Section 3 deals with this defense: . The contemnor may plead under Sections
3(1), 3(2) and 3(3), if on the ground that he is responsible for the publication or
for distribution of publication which prejudices or interferes with the pending
proceedings, criminal contempt is initiated against a person.
A fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings
A person publishing a fair and accurate report of any judicial proceedings
should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court under Section 4 of the Act.

A fair criticism of the judicial act

If a person publishes any fair comment on the merits of any case which has
been finally decided, (however, not in case of pending proceedings) he shall not
be guilty of criminal contempt under Section 5 of the Act.

In the famous case of Arundhati Roy, the SC has held that judicial criticism
cannot be petitioned under the excuse of Freedom of Speech and Expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Bonafide complaint against the presiding officer of a subordinate court.
S.6 provides if a person has made a complaint in good faith against the
presiding officer of any subordinate court to the High Court or to the Court to
which he is sub-ordinate then that person shall not be guilty of contempt of
court in respect of any statement made by him.Subsections (1) & (2) of S. 7 of
the Act provides that if a person has published an accurate summary of the
whole or any part of the order made by the court in camera (in Chamber) unless
the court has expressly prohibited, that a person shall not be guilty of Contempt
of Court.

Punishment for Contempt of Court

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the punishment for
Contempt of Court. High Court and the Supreme Court have been given the
power to punish someone for the Contempt of Court. Section 12(1) of this Act
states that a person who alleged with the Contempt of Court can be punished
with simple imprisonment and this imprisonment can extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or can be of both type
punishment. However, an accused may be discharged or the punishment that
was awarded to him maybe remitted on the condition that if he makes an
apology and this apology should satisfy the court then only he can be exempted
from the punishment of Contempt of Court. Explanation of this sentence is that
if the accused made an apology in the bona fide then this apology shall not be
rejected on the ground that it is conditional or qualified.

Limitation
Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the limitation for the
action of Contempt. It states that no court shall initiate any proceedings of
contempt in two conditions:
Either the proceedings are on his own motion, or,
After the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to
have been committed.
1. Prashant Bhushan: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/supreme-
court-prashant-bhushan-contempt-case-6569845/

2. Cash FOR warrant case :

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/cashforwarrant-sc-for-
unconditional-apology-from-zee-tv/207088/