CONTEMPT OF COURT AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO

Court contempt is defined as any behavior that defies or undermines the authority of the law and the
courts. In Halsbury's view, contempt is defined as any statements that impede the administration of
justice, whether they are spoken or written. The Apex Court ruled that maintaining the Courts' dignity
and respect is a vital part of the rule of law concept. Pre-independence India, when Mayor Courts were
founded as courts of record, had a notion of contempt of court, which could be traced back to this time
period. Contempt of court is punishable under the Indian High Courts Act 1861, which created the High
Court of Allahabad as a Court of Record. For the sake of maintaining the integrity of the courts and the
effective administration of justice, the statute of contempt was created. Contempt laws, including the
ability to penalize for contempt as well as protecting public respect for the courts and judges, are
designed to ensure that insults and bad actions against the courts and judges are punished or
sanctioned.

In India it wasn't until 1926, when the Contempt of Court Act was passed, that the High Court's differed
on the ability to penalize subordinate courts for contempt. India's first law addressing contempt of court
was the Contempt of Court Act 1926. The Contempt of Court Act of 1961 was eventually superseded by
the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 after a series of revisions. The contempt of court procedure begins
with section 14 of the 1971 Contempt of Court Act. When it is alleged or appears to the Supreme Court
or the High Court, on its own motion, that a person has committed contempt in its presence or hearing,
the court may order such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the court rises, on
the same day, or as soon as possible thereafter, shall: Should inform him/her in writing of the reason for
which he is being charged with contempt. The procedure in the instance of criminal contempt is
outlined in Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Also, according to Section 20 of the Contempt
of Court Acts, no court shall begin any contempt proceedings, either on its own initiative or otherwise,
after a period of one year has passed from the day on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed. This means that a court can now initiate a proceeding if the contempt was committed more
than a year ago. According to Section 18 of the Contempt of Court Act of 1972, if the contempt is of a
character that falls under Section 15, it should be heard by a bench of not fewer than three members.

In the United States Contempt of court can be direct or indirect, civil or criminal. Let's start with the
direct and indirect concepts. When an act of contempt is committed in front of the presiding judge, it is
known as direct contempt of court. In the case of direct contempt, the judge informs the offender that
the act he has performed constitutes a disturbance of the court or tribunal. The person is then given the
opportunity to react to the claim, and after hearing the party, the court can instantly impose the
punishment, whereas in the event of indirect contempt, the contempt is committed outside of the
courtroom and consists of disobedience of a prior court order. The individual accused of such contempt
is first given notice of the complaint against him. Second, he or she will have the opportunity to hear all
of the evidence that he or she want to present to the honourable court. The case is then decided, as well
as the sentence if found guilty. Although civil contempt is not thought to be a criminal act in civil trials, it
has been observed that some civil contempt was designed to destroy the plaintiff's, Judge's, or court's
reputation. As a result, the court dealt with the case appropriately. When an offender is punished for
criminal contempt, the charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the sentence must be
administered unconditionally after the charge is proven. When a person is charged with civil contempt,
the sanction is only imposed until the court's order is disobeyed; if the order is obeyed, the sanction is
lifted. The burden of proof in this scenario is significantly lower.

The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 formalized the contempt laws in England. Civil or criminal contempt
are the two categories of contempt recognized there. The highest penalty for criminal contempt under
the 1981 Contempt of Court Act is a two-year jail sentence. Contemptuous behaviour directed towards
the judge or magistrates while the court is in session, with the intent to disrupt the proper conduct of a
trial or other judicial action, may be charged as "direct" contempt. The term "direct" refers to when the
court cites the individual who is in contempt by stating the actions that were observed on the record.
Direct contempt differs from indirect contempt, in which a third party may file papers alleging contempt
against someone who has willfully broken the law.

In Hong Kong, Judges from the Court of the Final Appeal, the High Court, the District Court, and
members of various tribunals and the Coroner's Court all have the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of
court, which stems from common law legislation. This includes insulting a judge or justice, a witness, or
officers of the court, interfering with the court's proceedings, misbehaving in the court, leaving the court
without the court's permission during a proceeding, disobedience of a judgement or order of the court,
breaching an undertaking given to the court, and breaching a duty imposed on a solicitor by court rules.

Trust in the judiciary is essential to its basis, and if that trust or confidence is lost, the notion of justice
would collapse. Another conclusion is that Contempt laws in India are tied to and conflicting with the
Indian Constitution's guarantees on the freedom of speech and expression, which must be interpreted in
light of the judiciary's stance on major cases described below. Because both freedom of speech and the
right administration of justice are of equal significance, it is fair to conclude that they are at odds with
one another.

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 phrases such as scandalize the court' or 'prejudice judicial procedures'
have not been properly defined, making the rules governing contempt in India unclear and arbitrary in
certain circumstances. In light of the many observations and conclusions, it may be concluded that the
judiciary's motivation for promoting freedom of speech and expression conflicts with its desire to
protect its own image in the eyes of society. Contempt of Court is a hot-button issue in India because of
this effort to do more than one thing at a time.

Indisputable evidence has been gathered that the standard of law cannot survive without a rampart of
support for the dispenser of justice, namely the Judiciary, being unhinged at all times To punish anybody
who interferes with the administration of justice is a fundamental right that the judiciary has. It has also
been established that the authority of the court is not to defend the nobility of the court, but rather to
preserve the court's integrity and proper administration of justice. As a result, we may conclude that the
concept of contempt of court is critical to the Indian judiciary if it is correctly used in a limited number of
circumstances. This is only true if the authority granted by this legislation is used sparingly and sensibly.
Other constraints on the right to freedom of speech and expression include decency, morality,
defamation, public order, and incitement to commit crimes. It is critical for a country to have severe
regulations against contempt of court in order to maintain the court's decorum. To have faith in the
justice system, citizens must respect it inside themselves. Faith is automatically infused where there is
respect.