Types, Punishment, Defences - Contempt of Court Act, 1971

Introduction
The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old. In England, it is a common law
principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself,
and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name. Violation of the judges’ orders was
considered an affront to the king himself. Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or
obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed
disrespect towards them came to be punishable.
Roman"; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-
variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There were pre-
Independence laws of contempt in India. Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some
princely states also had such laws. When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court
was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. Separately, Article
129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of
itself. Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. The Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

Kinds of Contempt
The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal. Civil contempt is fairly simple.
It is committed when someone willfully disobeys a court order, or willfully breaches an
undertaking given to court. Criminal contempt is more complex. It consists of three forms:
a. words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalize” or “tend to scandalize”
or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court
b. prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding, and,
c. interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.

What constitutes as contempt

Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to
judgments and judicial functioning and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges are
normally considered matters that scandalise the judiciary. The rationale for this provision is
that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its
public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months
and/or a fine of up to ₹. 2,000.

What is not contempt of court?

Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings will not amount to contempt of court. Nor
is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after a case is heard and disposed of.

Is truth a defence against a contempt charge?

For many years, truth was seldom considered a defence against a charge of contempt. There
was an impression that the judiciary tended to hide any misconduct among its individual
members in the name of protecting the image of the institution. The Act was amended in
2006 to introduce truth as a valid defence, if it was in public interest and was invoked in
a bona fide
manner.
 CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
Definition and Types of Contempt of Court
Section 2(a) of the Act defines contempt in general and states that ““contempt of court”
means civil contempt or criminal contempt.” It can thus be said that contempt of court is of
two types –
1. Civil Contempt defined under Section 2(b)
2. Criminal Contempt defined under Section 2(c)
Section 2(b) talks about Civil Contempt, it states –
“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”
The term ‘wilful’ means doing an act voluntarily which is forbidden by the law or omission
to do something which law requires a person to do. Its purpose is to compel a party to obey
the order or decree of the court which is made against him. It is essentially of private nature
and is for the benefit of the party in whose favour the order has been passed.
Section 2(c) defines Criminal Contempt as –
““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.
iv.
v. >
vi. interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner”
Therefore, the essentials of Criminal Contempt can be listed as follows –
1. Scandalizing the authority of court – The concept of scandalizing the authority of
courts has been borrowed from English law. Therefore, as per this essential any act or
publication by which the authority of court is lowered constitutes to Criminal Contempt. This
covers the publications made against the act done by the Judge as a Judge and does not
include the averments made against the private acts of a judge, which are outside the scope of
his duty.
The main objective of this section is to protect and uphold the authority of the court.
Any publication which deters the prospective litigants from relying upon the
administration of justice by the court or creates the apprehension in the minds of the
public about the ability or fairness of a judge constitutes the offence of criminal
contempt by scandalizing the authority of the court.

2. Interference with the course of judicial proceedings – This provision is based on

the principle that “every person has the right to a fair trial”. There are multiple ways
by which there could be interference in a fair trial and media trial is one such way. It
is not necessary that there is an actual interference with the proceedings and any act
which is likely to interfere with it also constitutes as criminal contempt. Any
publication which prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial
proceeding would amount to criminal contempt of court. Media trial or trial by
 newspaper is not considered proper because it effects the fairness of trial and is likely
to cause interference with the administration of justice.

The knowledge of pendency of the case and reasonable grounds to believe that the
case in pending is sufficient to make out criminal contempt and the intention and
motive of the publisher behind the content of publication is not relevant for the
purpose of criminal contempt. If it lowers the authority of the court and causes
interference with the due course of judicial proceeding it would amount to criminal
contempt.

In civil cases, the pendency starts with the filing of the plaint and in criminal cases,
with the filing of a charge sheet or the issuance of summons or warrants. The
pendency continues till the case is decided. In case an appeal/revision is filed,
pendency continues till the appeal or revision is decided. If appeal/revision is not
filed, pendency continues till the period of limitation for filing the same has not
expired. Once it expires, pendency is over.

3. Interference with the administration of justice – The publication or doing of any

act which interferes or obstructs or tend to interfere and obstruct in the administration
of justice in any other manner, would amount to criminal contempt of court. This
clause is a residuary clause, covering those cases of criminal contempt which are not
expressly covered by section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act.

The term 'administration of justice' is much wider than the term 'course of judicial
proceedings'. Every person in India is entitled to approach the court in order to secure
justice and for the redressal of his grievances and the court has to decide dispute
between the parties as per law and equity.

Any conduct which tends to prevent or actually prevents a party to approach the court,
amounts to criminal contempt of court, for eg. writing a threatening letter to litigating
party or his counsel preventing him from attending the court, writing a letter to the
judge or approaching him in order to influence his judicial conscience or approaching
a counsel for undue favor are all examples of interference with administration of
justice and are contempt of court.

An advocate is an officer of the court and undue interference with the advocate in the
discharge of his professional functions amounts to contempt of court. Casting
aspersions on counsel or approaching him for not defending a particular person
amounts to criminal contempt of court.

PUNISHMENT UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

The punishment for the Contempt of Courts Act is provided under Section 12 of the Act.
Section 12 states –
“12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
or in any other law, 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.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall
impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in
respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a
civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a
sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six
months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to
a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in
charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company,
as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may
be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to
such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that
he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court
referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has
been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of
such director, manager, secretary or other officer.”
High Court and Supreme Court are bestowed with the power to punish for the contempt of
the court.
Under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, a contempt of court can 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.
However, in civil cases if the court considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and
that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six
months as it may think fit.
The court is not supposed to impose a sentence for contempt of court in excess of what is
prescribed under this section either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
An accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being
made by the accused to the satisfaction of the court. An apology is not supposed to be
rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona
fide.

DEFENSES AVAILABLE AGAINST CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDING

The Contempt of Courts Act provides for several defenses to a defendant against contempt
proceeding such as –
1. No Knowledge or Innocent Publication –
Section 3 of the Act provides defence to a person who innocently believes that publication of
such matter will not obstruct the proceedings of the court or to person who has no reasons to
believe that a proceeding was pending in the court. It states –
“3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt.—(1) A person shall not be
guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes
or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection
with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he
had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the
time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in
connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of
publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a
publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of
distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to
contain any such matter as aforesaid.”
Therefore, the general principle is that a person cannot be held guilty of contempt in respect
of an order of which he claims to be unaware.
S.3 deals with this defense. If a criminal contempt is initiated against a person on the ground
that he is responsible for publication or for distribution of publication which prejudices or
interferes with the pending proceedings, the defendant may take the following steps –
a. he may plead under S. 3(1) that at the time of publication, he had no reasonable
ground for believing that the proceeding was pending.
b. he may plead under S.3(2) that at the time of publication, no such proceeding was
pending.
c. he may plead under S.3(3) that at the time of distribution of publication, he had no
reasonable ground for believing that the matter (published or distributed by him)
contained or was likely to contain any material which interfered or obstructed the
pending proceeding or administration of justice.

2. Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceedings

Section 4 of the Act provides that a person cannot be held guilty if they have reported the
proceedings of the court accurately and fairly. It states –
“Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt.—Subject to the provisions
contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair
and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.”
S.4 of the Act provides that a person should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court for
publishing a fair and accurate report of any judicial proceedings or any stage thereof. S. 7 of
the Act provides Exception to the general principle that justice should be administered in
public. Sub sections (1) and (2) of S.7 provide that a person shall not be guilty of Contempt
of Court for publishing the text or for publishing fair and 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 the publication of the proceedings on the grounds of:
a. Public Policy
b. Public Order
c. Security of the State
d. Information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or, in exercise of the
power vested in it.
 3. Fair Criticism
Section 5 of the Act exempts fair criticism from the purview of contempt. It states –
“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”
S.5 provides that a person shall not be guilty of criminal contempt for publishing any fair
comment on the merits of any case which has been finally decided. A defense can be taken
that the statement complained of (in respect of publication of which criminal contempt has
been initiated) must be in respect of a case which has been finally decided and not in respect
of pending proceedings. Moreover, the statement should come from the mouth of a
knowledgeable person in the field of law and not from a litigating party which has lost the
case. In short, fair criticism means that criticism which while criticizing the act of a Judge
does not impute any ulterior motive to him. In case of Arundhati Roy, the Supreme Court has
held that judicial criticism cannot be invoked under the garb of Freedom of Speech and
Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court further clarified that fair criticism of the judiciary as a whole or the
conduct of a Judge in particular may not amount to contempt if it is made in good faith and in
public interest. To ascertain the 'good faith' and 'public interest' the Courts have to take into
consideration all the surrounding circumstances including the person's knowledge in the field
of law, the intention behind the comment and the purpose sought to be achieved. A common
citizen cannot be permitted to comment upon the Courts in the name of criticism by seeking
the help of Freedom of speech and expression for the reason that if it is not checked, it would
destroy the judicial institution itself.

4. Bona fide complaint against presiding officers

Section 6 of the Act states –
“6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt.—A
person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in
good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to—
(a) any other subordinate court, or
(b) the High Court,
to which it is subordinate”
S.6 provides that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement
made by him by way of complaint in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any sub-
ordinate court to the High Court or to the Court to which he is sub-ordinate. The protection of
this section will be available only when it is proved that the complaint was made in good
faith.
In ascertaining the 'good faith' the intention and the purpose sought to be achieved by
complaint will be taken into consideration and it would be ensured that the same was not
made with ulterior motive.

5. No substantial interference with due course of justice.

Section 13 of the Act states –
By the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006, a new Section 13 has been substituted in
place of existing S.13. This new S. 13 provides that “notwithstanding anything contained
in any law for the time being in force, no Court should impose a sentence for Contempt of
Court unless it is satisfied that the Contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes
or tends to interfere with the due course of justice.
Clause (b) of Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 that was introduced recently by
2006 amendment, allows the accused to raise the defense of justification by truth of such
contempt, if the court is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the
said defence is bona fide.
However, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is
satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

6. Justification by truth.
The amended S.13(2) provides that the Court may permit justification by truth as a valid
defense in any proceeding for criminal contempt if it is satisfied that it is in public interest.
Thus, truth is now a defense if it is in the public interest and bonafide.

7. The statement complained of is open to different interpretations.

If the words complained of are open to two different interpretations and one of them indicates
contempt while the other does not, the contemptner cannot be punished for non-compliance
of one interpretation. But, in order to succeed in this defense, it is necessary to prove that the
order was complied with in respect of one interpretation. If the order is not complied with at
all, it cannot be proved that there was a reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of the order.
On the other hand, it will be presumed that a doubt is deliberately sought to be created so as
to avoid the compliance of the order.

8. Defamation of the judge personally

If the publication or other act is merely a defamatory attack on the judge and is not intended
to interfere with the administration of justice, it will not be taken as contempt of court.
The publication or other Act amounts to Contempt of Court only when it has nexus with the
functioning of a judge. The statement complained of may amount to Contempt of Court only
when it is made against a judge in his judicial capacity in the exercise of his judicial
functions. However, in such a situation a judge is not remediless and he has the same
remedies available which are available to a common man. A defamatory attack on a judge
may be Libel or Slander and he has a discretion to proceed for Defamation in civil, criminal
or simultaneous proceedings against the person concerned but he cannot be punished
summarily under criminal contempt of court. The object of Contempt law is to protect the
confidence of the people in the administration of justice and its object is not to prevent
attacks upon the personal reputation of any individual judge. So, any personal attack upon the
judge unconnected with the office he holds, is dealt with under the ordinary rules of Libel and
Slander.
Every citizen of our country is bound by the commands of the Hon’ble Courts, and
no one, no matter how strong, dares to ignore the Court’s binding and final decrees,
or he would face the Court’s wrath. No authority may afford to willfully disregard
court orders for fear of being penalised under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

When a person fails to comply with a court order or an undertaking provided to the
court, they may be dealt with for contempt. Non-compliance with court orders
endangers the rule of law and undermines public trust in our legal system, which
demands respect for the court’s authority.

Non-compliance with orders can be categorised as either civil or criminal contempt,

depending on whether the goal is to compel compliance or penalise defiance. As the
courts have understood, this difference is ambiguous and complicated. This
distinction, according to the Commission, should not be maintained.

Contempt procedures are an important aspect of the legal system because they help
to preserve the sanctity and authority of the courts. Noncompliance with court orders
is one of the key grounds for contempt actions. This article dives into the notion of
contempt of court, the situations that can lead to contempt proceedings, and the
sources of power that justify such actions.

According to Merriam-Webster, “contempt” denotes “lack of respect or reverence for

something.” Contempt of Court is a legal infraction committed by someone who
disrespects/disobeys the Judge or attempts to disrupt the flow of court.

In other terms, it is a wrongful conduct committed by someone that

lowers/challenges/diminishes the Court’s superior authority. The act can take the
form of failing to follow guidelines, tampering with evidence, defying the Court,
disrupting normal Court procedure, and so on.

Advocates, officers in charge, witnesses, or anybody else can commit it. Articles 1291
and 2152 authorise the Supreme Court and the High Court to punish itself for
contempt. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is law that explicitly addresses concerns
concerning contempt.

A Brief Historical Background of Contempt of Court

The notion of contempt of court is not a new occurrence, but has ancient historical
origins. Many such laws have existed throughout history. There have been cases
where persons have been penalised for actions that were contrary to the
administration of justice. This power was often held by Kings or those who presided
over the issue.
The modern Indian idea of contempt of court is based on the pre-independence era.
The Contempt of Court Act, 1926 was India’s first piece of law dealing particularly
with contempt concerns. Section 2 of the Act outlines the High Courts’ authority to
penalise contempt of court.3 It states, “The High Court shall have and exercise the
same jurisdiction, powers, and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and
practise, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in
respect of contempts of itself: Provided that the High Court shall not take cognizance
of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it
where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Penal Code.”

Later, after independence, the statute was abolished, and new law, the Contempt of
Courts statute 1952, was enacted. A measure was submitted in Parliament in 1960 to
amend the current statute on contempt. The government decided to re-review the
existing legislation, which resulted in the creation of a Committee (Sanyal
Committee) to analyse the present law and the proposed drought.

The group delivered its findings in 1963, and extensive debates followed with various
academics and interests. The measure was subsequently referred to the Joint Select
Committee, which decided to change the section about the time limit for pursuing
contempt charges. The bill was ultimately passed into law in 1971, and it abolished
the previous one.

Classification of Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court Act 1971, classifies contempt into two different heads i.e. Civil
Contempt and Criminal Contempt.

Civil Contempt

Civil Contempt is defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971.4
According to the Act, “Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgement,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court.”

In comparison to criminal contempt, the level of seriousness is far lower. Mens rea is
a crucial factor in Civil Contempt. According to the definition, civil contempt is a
violation committed against those who were expected to benefit from the
proceedings. Civil Contempt of a Court is defined as willful disobedience of a Court’s
order.

In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Others v. Dharam Godha,5 the Supreme Court
ruled that And Ors defined “wilful” as “an act or omission done voluntarily and
intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the
specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with
bad intention either to disobey or disregard the law.” It denotes an intentional activity
carried out with wicked intent or with a negative motivation or aim.

The court went on to say that “to constitute contempt, the Court’s order must be of
such a nature that it is capable of execution by the person charged in normal
circumstances.” It should not need any unusual effort, nor should it be entirely or
partially dependent on the act or omission of a third person for compliance.”

There are several civil contempt of court defences available. The most prevalent is a
lack of awareness since if the individual is unaware of the directions, he or she cannot
be held accountable for failing to comply with those commands. As previously
stated, Mens Rea is a key aspect of Section 2(b). If the act was done accidentally, it
can also be used as a defence. Similarly, various additional defences were raised,
such as the command being ambiguous, the order being difficult to carry out under
normal conditions, and so on.

Direct Civil Contempt

The purposeful defiance of a court order or other judicial command that happens in
the near presence of the superior court is referred to as direct civil contempt.
Without a formal hearing or trial, direct civil contempt fines can be applied.

Indirect Civil Contempt

Indirect Civil Contempt, on the other hand, happens when an individual or

corporation fails to comply with a court order or other judicial command when the
court is not present. Failure to pay court-ordered child support, failure to comply
with a restraining order, or failure to produce needed documents or information are
all examples. Indirect civil contempt is often penalised following a formal hearing or
trial in which the person accused of contempt is given the opportunity to defend
themselves.

Criminal Contempt

Criminal Contempt is defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act
1971.6 It 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 other act whatsoever which-

 scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or
 prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
 interferes with or tends to interfere with the administration of justice in any other
way.”
To qualify as criminal contempt, four requirements must be met: publication of any
matter, undermining or lowering the authority of a court, interfering with normal
Judicial processes, and interfering with the administration of justice. Preventing
Preceding Officers of the Court, Litigating Parties, Police Officers, or anyone else
involved in a Court’s proceedings from attending court constitutes Criminal
Contempt since it is an obvious interference in the administration of Justice. The law
of contempt is founded on solid public policy by penalising any behaviour that
undermines public trust in the administration of justice.

Criminal contempt is considerably more serious than civil contempt. There are
extremely rare cases where a simple apology was accepted and the sentence was
suspended.

Direct Contempt for Criminal Charges

Direct Criminal Contempt is a criminal offence that relates to disturbing or impeding

court proceedings when the judge or other court personnel are present. Interrupting
a witness, refusing to observe the judge’s directions, or making threats against court
staff are all examples of this. Direct criminal contempt happens in the courtroom and
is frequently punished summarily, which means that the judge can inflict punishment
without a formal trial or hearing.

Indirect Contempt for Criminal Charges

Indirect Criminal Contempt, on the other hand, happens outside of the courtroom
and entails the purposeful disobedience of a court order or other judicial command.
Failure to comply with a subpoena, defying a restraining order, or neglecting to pay
court-ordered child support are all examples. In most cases, indirect criminal
contempt is penalised following a formal hearing or trial in which the person accused
of contempt is given the opportunity to defend themselves.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Court Orders

In India, civil contempt refers to willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, order,
writ, or other processes of a court, or any willful breach of an undertaking given to a
court. The punishment for civil contempt in India is outlined under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. The Act provides the following consequences for civil contempt:

1. Imprisonment: A person found guilty of civil contempt may be sentenced to simple

imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months. The court may also impose a
fine as an additional penalty.
2. Fine: In addition to or instead of imprisonment, the court may direct the payment of a
fine. The amount of the fine is within the discretion of the court, and it may vary
based on the circumstances of the contempt.
 3. Compensation: The court may order the contemnor to compensate the party affected
by the contempt. This compensation is intended to remedy any losses or damages
suffered due to the contemptuous act.
4. Purging Contempt: Contemnors have the option to purge contempt by complying
with the order or undertaking that they previously violated. Purging contempt
involves rectifying the non-compliance to the satisfaction of the court.

It’s essential to note that the court has the discretion to determine the appropriate
punishment based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of the
punishment is to ensure the authority and dignity of the court, as well as to compel
compliance with court orders.

Additionally, contempt proceedings typically involve a show cause notice to the

alleged contemnor, providing them with an opportunity to explain their actions
before the court decides on the appropriate punishment. Legal representation is
crucial for individuals facing contempt proceedings to present a defense and
navigate the legal process effectively.

Contempt of Court and Constitution

Constitutional provisions also provide higher courts the power of contempt. Articles
129 and 142(b) of the Indian Constitution provide the Apex Court authority over
contempt.

Article 129 establishes the ‘Apex Court’ as a ‘Court of Record’ and permits it to
punish itself for contempt, whereas Article 142(b) empowers the Supreme Court to
punish anybody for contempt, subject to other laws.7

This Court had the ability to penalise for contempt of itself under Article 129 of the
Constitution, and it may investigate any such contempt under Article 143(2). It is
worth noting that the first draught of Article 129 (Draught Article 108) did not
include any clauses concerning contempt. Dr. Ambedkar was the one who pushed for
it.

Article 215 grants all Indian High Courts constitutional powers regarding contempt.
According to the text, “High Courts will be courts of record. Every High Court should
be a court of record, with all the powers of such a court, including the authority to
penalise for contempt of itself.”

In T. Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.,8 The Supreme Court stated, “The
jurisdiction contemplated by Articles 129 and 215 is inalienable.” It cannot be revoked
or reduced by any legislative act subordinate to the Constitution.

Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution are not in conflict with the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
cannot be invoked to limit or regulate the exercise of authority anticipated by the
aforementioned two Articles. It is easy to assume that the constitutional rules
concerning contempt of court are inherent and cannot be diminished by any
legislative act.

Contempt of court and freedom of speech and expression were brought up again
last year when Senior Supreme Court Adv. Prashant Bhushan was charged with
contempt. Freedom to express one’s beliefs and views is an essential component of
any democratic society.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution states that “all citizens have the right to
freedom of speech and expression.”9 It is crucial to stress, however, that this right is
not absolute. Article 19(2) of the constitution provides for some acceptable limits.10

Conclusion

Contempt proceedings are an important instrument for protecting the judiciary’s

authority and ensuring the smooth administration of justice. Noncompliance with
court orders not only impedes the resolution of legal problems, but it also
undermines public trust in the judicial system. As such, the ability to start contempt
proceedings is a crucial instrument used by courts to safeguard their integrity and
efficacy.

Understanding the sources of authority for contempt proceedings, the penalties of

noncompliance, and the legal principles established by historic judgements is critical
for grasping the role of contempt in upholding the rule of law and preserving the
court system’s credibility.