1

Contempt of court,Insinuations derogatory to the dignity of the court which are calculated
to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the judge .An attempt by the
one party to prejudice the court against the other party to the action .To stir up public
feeling on the question pending on the decision before the court and try to influence the
judge in favour of himself .An act or publication which scandalizes the court attributing
dishonesty to a judge in the discharge of his function . these are the situation where the
contempt of the court is constitute

In the case Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat the supreme court have
given the verdict that the in the section of 129 the supreme court has the power to protect
itself and also to protect its subordinate court . the article 129 has a big umbrella which
covers all the court under the supreme court of india . the protection is necessary till the
grass rot level to protect the proper justice flow and confidence in the people .

Under article 136 the supreme court has the power to correct judicial oders of the
subordinate court and judicial superdiction of all other courts therefore fr the proper flow
of justice the supreme court has to protect its subordinate court as they do not have the self
power to protect themselves from contempt of the court. supreme court in the cases of
contempt of the court used to take strict action against the accused for the protection of its
subordinate court and to have respect or trust for the public

The parliament for the protection of the court enacted the contempt of court act 1971
which made it clear that offence to scandalize, or tend to scandalize, or lower, or tend to
lower, the authority of any court, will surely be considered as contempt of court. accrding
to Section 2(c)(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provide the definition of criminal
contempt which includes any publication or words which which try to scandalise, or lowers
or tends to lower the authority of, any court. this gives the court a wider power to punish
against the contempt of the court which was seen in the case of E.M.S. Namboodripad v. T
Narayan Nambiar, 1971 and in the case against the Arundhati poy in 2002
As said in the South Africa Constitutional Court in In State v. Mamabolo, 2001, held that”
freedom of expression must be weighed against the necessity of maintaining public
confidence in the court of the law” the power of the supreme court in the contempt should
be limited, other wise the freedom of the people will be violated , the respect to the court
should happen itself, it cannot happen through a greater restriction

The president has a very high privilege in the country in according to the constitution of
India, he is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the power and
duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him with respect to
those powers under article 361 of the constitution. the power of immunity to the president
is large no court can ask the president to exercise his power or not to exercise his power,
these powers are not there for Prime Minister and Governor of a state .

Immunity extends to act or omission to exercise or not to exercise his powers or to perform
or not to perform any of the duties of his office nor a court can issue a writ for the
nonperformance even though the act is a contravention of the constitution then also the
president is protected so long as the act is to be done in pursurance of the constitution.
according to article 361 the orders passed in the name of the president can’t be exempted.
The governor of the state and the prime minister is liable to perform the function.

No criminal proceeding cannot be instituted against the president under article 361(2) and
no process for the arrest or imprisonment of the president can be issued from any court of
the during the term of service ,no civil proceeding claiming relif against the president in
respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him . these privileges are not there for
the prime minister of the country but the the governor of the state has this privileges

6
Supreme court in the case of S.R Bommai v. UOI has said , no court is concerned about the
advice that the council of ministers that have given to the president, the court is only
concerned about the oders passed by the president and its validity ,an oder cannot be
challenged with regarding the advice given to the president. if the president act contrary to
the advice of the council of minister then the ministry can go with the impeachment of the
president the court has no role in it

The court in bommai case also mentioned that the privileges in respect ot present the
document in the court may not claimed under the constitutional provision 74(2) it may
never the less possible to claim privileges under the section 123 of the evidence act , as its
purpose is entirely different,and privileges under s 123 will be decided in the merit by the
court

Article 74(2) cannot override the basic provision of the constitution relating to the judicial
review when any action taken by the President in exercise of his function is challenged it is
the duty of the council of the ministers to justify the same since the president act under the
advice of council of minister under section 74(1)