Professional Ethics

Case Analysis: R.N. Ramaul Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh

THE AMITY UNIVERSITY, DUBAI

BATCH:2020-2025

COURSE CODE:

LAW512

SUBMITTED BY: ISRAA ZAIDI

PROGRAM NAME: B.A L.L. B (H)

AUD14779
 CONTEMPT OF COURT

A court can find someone in contempt if they disrespect the court, disobey its orders, or
disturb in its smooth operation. A dew examples are courtroom interruptions, interference
with evidence collection efforts, evidence destruction, court order violations, and intimidation
of witnesses.

‘Contempt of court’ happens when someone risks unfairly influencing a court case. It may
stop somebody from getting a fair trial and can affect a trial’s outcome.

There are basically two types of disrespect:

1. Showing disdain for the legal establishment in a court setting.

2. Willfully disregarding a court's order.

Courts are recognized as place that upholds the law and seeks out justice to the people,
therefore, the purpose of recognizing contempt of court is to secure the dignity of the courts
and the uninterrupted and unimpeded administration of justice. Contempt of court seeks to
protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a
legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority.

When a court determines that an act qualifies as contempt of court, it has the right to issue an
order, known as "found" or "held," declaring that an individual or group has disregarded or
disregarded the court's authority during a trial or hearing. This is the judge's most powerful
authority to punish behavior that interferes with the court's regular business.

Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.
In some jurisdictions, the refusal to respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfil the obligations of
a juror, or to provide certain information can constitute contempt of the court.

While section 2(a) of The Contempt of Courts, 1971 states that "contempt of court means
civil contempt or criminal contempt," the Indian law does not offer a precise definition of the
term. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil and criminal contempt in sections 2(b)
and 2(c). The legislature has established civil and criminal contempt, but it has not defined
what constitutes contempt. Therefore, contempt cannot be contained within a definition's four
walls. The court itself can therefore decide what would be offensive to the court's dignity and
what would diminish the court's reputation, and it is up to the court to handle each contempt
case based on its unique set of facts and circumstances.

There are two types of contempt:

1. Civil Contempt
2. Criminal Contempt

Civil Contempt

According to section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 civil contempt means willful
disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or
willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

a) Disobedience of any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of

a court or an undertaking given to the court.- To be considered contempt of court,
an order must be disobeyed. Any type of judgment or order, including final,
preliminary, ex-parte, and contempt judgments, is included in an order. Contempt of
court also includes disobeying a court's order, directive, writ, or other process, as well
as an undertaking provided to the court.

b) The Disobedience or breach must be willful, deliberate and intentional.- Civil

contempt cannot be established by someone simply disobeying or violating a court
order. A disobedience or breach of this kind needs to be purposeful, deliberate, and
willful. The court must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the contemnor
disregarded the court's order with willfulness, purpose, and intentionality to use its
authority to penalize the person.

Criminal Contempt
According to section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt means the
publication (whether by word, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

i) Scandalizes or threatens to scandalize or diminishes or threatens to diminish the

authority of any court.

ii) Prejudices or impedes or threatens to impede the proper course of any legal
proceeding.

iii) Interferes or threatens to interfere with, or obstructs or threatens to obstruct, the

administration of justice in any other way.

There are four essentials to constitute criminal contempt of court:

1. Publication of any manner- The definition of "publication" in relation to contempt

of court has been interpreted quite broadly. Signs, spoken and written language, and
visual expression are all included. It also covers everything that is published in
newspapers and periodicals, everything that is broadcast on radio, and everything that
is shown on television, in theaters, and in movie theaters.

2. Scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court - Scandalizing can take many
different forms, but at its core, it is an attack on certain judges or the court as a whole
by making unjustified and disparaging remarks about their abilities or character,
whether or not it is related to a specific case because it undermines public trust in the
judiciary by instilling mistrust in the minds of the general public, such behavior is
punishable as criminal contempt.

In the Arundhati Roy case, the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that criticism that
compromises the court's dignity is not appropriate criticism and does not fit under the
protection of freedom of speech and expression as specified by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution. The prosecution of individuals for causing scandal in court is therefore not
forbidden by the Article 19 (1) right to freedom of speech and expression in the Constitution
(a).
 3. Prejudice or interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding
Any publication that taints or obstructs a legal proceeding in its proper course is
criminal contempt of court. Trials conducted by the media or by newspapers are not
regarded as appropriate since they compromise trial fairness and may impede the
proper administration of justice.

4. Interference/Obstruction with the administration of justice in any other manner.

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.
 CASE: R.N. RAMAUL VS. STATE OF HIMANCHAL PRADESH

In this case, a complainant had said that Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Tourism
willfully disobeyed the court’s directions. The court ordered the Corporation to reinstate the
complainant's seniority in service over two other officers, N.K. Sharma and H.R. Choudhary.
Despite this, the complaint had claimed that the Corporation used loopholes to deny him the
benefits of the court decision.

The complainant had also stated that if the corporation followed court orders, his seniority
position would have been maintained and he would have received a promotion to the post of
general deputy manager.

On the date of 28/5/1982, the corporation later granted the complainant the promotion but the
period between 28/5/1982 to 3/9/1986 would be considered a ‘notional promotion’ without
any monetary benefits contrary to what the complainant was entitled for.

The court recognizes the complainant's reasonable complaint, finding that, even though there
were no explicit orders for promotion from 26/5/1982 in the court decision and that the relief
was implied. The court orders that the promotion for the specified period be accompanied
with monetary incentives and provides a specific direction to that effect.

In this case, the court had not mentioned or given the decision or order regarding the
monetary benefits that the complainant was supposed to receive along with the promotion
and gave the order of civil contempt of court on the corporation for not following court
orders. So, the corporation was accused of civil contempt of court.

However, there are certain defenses a person can use if he has been accused of civil contempt
of court. In this case the order given by the court was considered as vague and 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.
So, the corporation had taken up this defense and pleaded that the given evidence the court
had not mentioned to pay the monetary benefit, so the corporation gets the defense.
Other defenses such as the defense of lack of knowledge of the court order asserts that a
person cannot be held accountable if they are unaware of the court's command. The court is
required to serve the order on the affected subject using techniques such as mail, personal
delivery, or certified copies. Another defense that can be claimed is that the disobedient
behavior was unintentional or beyond the individual's control. The claim's reasonableness
determines the success of this defense and if it is proven that complying with the court order
is impossible, but it must be truly and completely impossible to follow their order rather than
just difficult.

This case demonstrates that, even though the court was accusing the corporation with civil
contempt of court, some defenses can be raised. This case represents and symbolizes that the
court is a part of the judicial system, with the power and authority to uphold justice for the
people and ensure that it is not tampered with. The order for contempt of court demonstrates
the amount of power that the judiciary system and courts of law maintain in the country, and
it also acknowledges that the courts can issue judgements or orders that are unfavorable to an
individual, despite this that it still provides defenses to a person or individual so that even if
the court decides to issue a judgement or order, the people can still obtain their right to
justice.