Contempt of court.

To understand the concept of contempt of court it’s must to know about the
concept of punishment of Professional misconduct which is a genus to which
contempt of court is a species.

Misconduct is the antonyms of conduct. Misconduct represents misbehaviour.

Misconduct as explained in the Dictionary is 'improper conduct'.

In State of Panjab V. Ram Singh (AIR 1992, SC 2188) the Supreme Court held that
the term may involve moral turpitude,

In Re Tulsidas Amanmal Karim it has been held that any conduct which in any way
renders a person unfit for exercise of his profession or is likely to tamper or
embarrass the administration of justice by the High Court or any other court
subordinate thereto may be taken as misconduct.

In the matter of an advocate, if the conduct of an advocate is such as to make him

unworthy to remain a member of the honorable legal profession and unfit to perform
his responsible duties, he will be guilty of misconduct and may be punished therefore

Some of the instances of Professional misconduct are as follows,

1) Dereliction of duty
2) Professional negligence
3) Misappropriation
4) Changing sides
5) Contempt of court and improper behaviour before a magistrate
6) Furnishing false information
7) Giving improper advice
8) Misleading the clients in court
9) Non speaking the truth
10) Disowning allegiance to court
11) Moving application without informing that a similar application has been rejected
by another authority
12) Suggesting to bribe the court officials
13) Forcing the prosecution witness not to tell the truth.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being

disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of
behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.

“The term ‘Contempt of Court’ is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to

particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit
citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes.” This definition is
given by Lord Diplock when he was giving the judgment in the case of Attorney-General v.
Times Newspapers Ltd.

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 wilfully 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.

Contempt of Court is a matter which regards that justice should be administered fairly and it
also punishes anyone who aims to hurt the dignity or authority of the judicial tribunals. This
law has its origin from the medieval times when the royal powers of the monarch were
transferred to the court and at this time the monarch was believed to be appointed by God and
everyone was accountable to him. This power of accountability clearly depicts the same
accountability the Supreme Court possesses nowadays under Article 129 and 142 of the
Indian constitution against its contempt.

There are two Articles in the Constitution of India which talk about the Contempt of Court
and these are Article 129 and Article 142(2) .

Article 129.

Article 129 says that the Supreme Court shall be the ‘Court of Record’ and it has all the
powers of such courts including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Now, we should know about the meaning of ‘Court of Record’ to understand why anything
commented wrongly against the decision of the courts leads to Contempt of Court.

Here, is the answer to this question. The ‘Court of Record’ means a Court having its acts and
proceedings registered for everlasting memory or that memory which has no end and as
evidence or proof. The truth of these records cannot be questioned and also these records are
treated as a higher authority. And anything stated against the truth of these records comprised
Contempt of Court.

Article 142(2).

This article also talks about Contempt of Court. This Article says that when any law is made
by the Parliament on the provisions mentioned in clause 1 of this Article, the Supreme Court
has all the power to make an order for securing any person’s attendance, production of any
documents or has the power to give punishment to anyone for its contempt.

This also does not mean that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right of personal
liberty if it has the power to punish for Contempt of Court. We know that it is the guardian of
all the rights that we get from the Indian Constitution so it has to safeguard these rights and
cannot violate these rights itself.
The Contempt of Courts Act,1971.

The concept of Contempt of Court has also been defined in Section 2(a) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which has broadly describe it as civil
contempt or criminal contempt.

Essentials of Contempt of Court

Every offence has certain exceptions that has to be fulfilled for making the
person liable for doing that act. Contempt of Court also has certain essentials
and these are as follows:

1. Disobedience to any type of court proceedings, its orders, judgment,

decree, etc should be done ‘willfully’ in case of Civil Contempt.
2. In Criminal Contempt ‘publication’ is the most important thing and
this publication can be either spoken or written, or by words, or by
signs, or by visible representation.
3. The court should make a ‘valid order’ and this order should be in
‘knowledge’ of the respondent.
4. The action of contemnor should be deliberate and also it should be
clearly disregard of the court’s order.
These essentials should be fulfilled while making someone accused of
Contempt of Court.

Types of contempt of court.

Civil Contempt

Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines Civil Contempt as the
intentional disobedience of a court order, decree, direction, judgment, or writ by
an individual. It also includes the deliberate violation of commitments made to
the court by a person. Civil Contempt is considered offenses of a private nature
because it typically involves actions that deprive a party of the benefits intended
by a court order. In essence, it's a wrongdoing directed at the individual who is
supposed to receive the advantages outlined in the court's order.

Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup,

This case revolves around the failure to comply with a court order. Despite the
court instructing the delivery of immovable property through a decree, the
defendant faced obstacles and failed to carry out the order. As a result, the court
deemed this non-compliance as disobedience to the orders of the competent Civil
Court.

U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial

Development Authority
The case involves contempt of court through the breach of an undertaking. The
Supreme Court had directed the Noida Authorities to verify and provide details
on affidavits submitted by individuals for plot allotment. However, an individual
named Mr. S submitted a false affidavit to mislead the court. In response, the
court issued a show-cause notice against him, prompting him to explain why
contempt proceedings should not be initiated for misleading the Supreme Court.

Criminal Contempt
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines Criminal Contempt as
the commission of certain acts, including:

1. Publication of any matter: This can be through words (spoken or written),

gestures, signs, or visible representation.

2. Acts that involve:

- a) Scandalizing the court: Engaging in actions or making statements that
tend to scandalize or lower the authority of any court.
- b) Bias or interference: Any actions that exhibit bias or tend to interfere
with the due course of judicial proceedings.
- c) Obstruction of justice: Acts that obstruct or tend to obstruct, interfere, or
disturb the administration of justice in any manner.

Criminal Contempt, unlike Civil Contempt, is more concerned with acts that have
a broader impact on the administration of justice, affecting the court's authority
or the fair conduct of legal proceedings.

Case law:
Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh
This case involved a situation where an advocate launched a derogatory and
scandalous attack on a judge of the High Court. The advocate, who was also an
election petitioner in the High Court, filed an application seeking a stay for further
arguments in an election petition and the transfer of election petitions.

The court found that these actions amounted to an attack on the judicial
proceedings of the High Court and had the potential to scandalize the Court. The
judgment held that it was not just an expression of disagreement or criticism but
an attempt to intimidate the judge and interfere with the fair conduct of the trial.
In essence, the court saw it as an effort to disrupt the judicial process and
undermine the authority of the High Court in maintaining a fair trial environment.

Object.
Contempt of court serves as a crucial mechanism to preserve the authority and
dignity of the judicial system. Its primary objective is to ensure the smooth
functioning of legal proceedings by discouraging actions that may disrupt or
undermine the court's authority. By penalizing contemptuous behavior, the legal
system aims to create an environment conducive to fair and impartial justice,
shielding litigants, witnesses, and the legal process itself from intimidation or
obstruction.

Furthermore, contempt powers contribute to upholding the rule of law,

emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and decisions. This
not only maintains the integrity of the judicial process but also fosters public
confidence in the legal system. Striking a delicate balance, contempt laws allow
for constructive criticism and freedom of speech while intervening when
expressions cross into behavior that scandalizes the court or obstructs justice. In
essence, contempt of court serves as a vital tool in sustaining the credibility,
effectiveness, and public trust in the judiciary.

Limitations.
Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, establishes limitations on
initiating contempt proceedings. There are two specific conditions mentioned:

- Court's Own Motion: The court cannot independently start contempt

proceedings. In other words, it cannot initiate legal actions against
contemptuous behaviour unless prompted by external factors such as a
complaint or formal request.

- One-Year Limitation: The second condition imposes a time constraint. No

contempt proceedings can be initiated after the expiration of one year from
the date on which the contempt is alleged to have occurred. This time limit
is in place to ensure that legal actions for contempt are pursued in a timely
manner, promoting the swift administration of justice.
Defences for the Contempt of Court
The following defences collectively aim to strike a balance between the
protection of freedom of expression and the need to maintain the integrity and
effectiveness of the legal system. They outline circumstances under which
individuals can engage in the reporting, criticism, or discussion of legal
proceedings without facing contempt charges.

1. Innocent Publication and Distribution (Section 3):

- Sub-section (1): This defence protects individuals from contempt charges if,
at the time of publication, they had no reasonable grounds to believe that a civil
or criminal proceeding was pending. It emphasizes the importance of knowledge
about the ongoing nature of the legal process.
- Sub-section (2): Extends the protection by stating that the publication related
to non-pending proceedings will not be deemed contempt of court.
- Sub-section (3): Focuses on the distribution aspect, stating that distributing a
publication containing contemptuous matter is not contempt if, at the time of
distribution, the person had no reasonable grounds to believe it contained such
matter.

2. Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceeding (Section 4):

- This defence shields individuals from contempt charges when they publish a
fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage of it. However, this
defence is subject to the provisions contained in Section 7.

3. Fair Criticism of Judicial Act (Section 5):

- Protects the right to express opinions on the merits of a case that has been
heard and finally decided without facing contempt charges. It acknowledges the
importance of open discourse and criticism in a democratic legal system.

4. Complaint Against Presiding Officers of Subordinate Courts (Section 6):

- This defence allows individuals to make statements in good faith concerning
the presiding officer of a subordinate court without being charged with contempt.
It recognizes the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial system.

5. Publication of Proceedings in Chambers or In Camera (Section 7):

- Sub-section (1): Ensures that individuals are not held in contempt for
publishing fair and accurate reports of proceedings in chambers or in camera
unless explicitly prohibited by law, court order, or specific grounds related to
public policy, public order, security, or secrecy of information.
 - Sub-section (2): Extends the protection to the publication of the text or a fair
and accurate summary of orders made in chambers or in camera unless expressly
prohibited on specified grounds.

Punishments for contempt of court.

Section 12 of the contempt of court act lays down provision regarding the
punishment for contempt of court:

1. Sub-section (1):
- This section establishes the potential punishments for contempt of court. A
person found guilty may face:
- Simple imprisonment for a term up to six months.
- A fine extending up to two thousand rupees.
- Both imprisonment and a fine.

- The provision also introduces a significant caveat—the court has the

discretion to discharge the accused or remit the punishment if a sincere apology
is made to the satisfaction of the court. Importantly, the explanation emphasizes
that an apology, even if qualified or conditional, will not be rejected if made
genuinely.

2. Sub-section (2):
- Places a statutory limit on the court's authority, ensuring that no court can
impose a sentence exceeding the specified limits in sub-section (1). This
limitation applies to contemptuous actions directed at the court itself or any court
subordinate to it.

3. Sub-section (3):
- Deals specifically with civil contempt and provides the court with flexibility
in sentencing. If the court believes that a fine alone is insufficient to meet the ends
of justice, it can order the individual to be detained in a civil prison for a period
not exceeding six months.

4. Sub-sections (4) and (5):

- Address contempt committed by a company. If a person found guilty of
contempt is a company, those in charge of and responsible for its conduct may
also be deemed guilty. The court can enforce punishment, including detention in
civil prison.
 - The explanation clarifies that "company" encompasses any corporate body,
including a firm or association of individuals. In the context of a firm, a "director"
refers to a partner.

- Sub-section (4) introduces a defence, allowing individuals to avoid

punishment if they prove that the contempt was committed without their
knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent it.

- Sub-section (5) extends liability to directors, managers, secretaries, or officers

of a company if the contempt is committed with their consent, connivance, or
neglect. Their detention in civil prison is subject to the court's permission.

In summary, these provisions establish a comprehensive framework for punishing

contempt of court, considering the nature of the contempt, providing room for
apologies, and addressing corporate responsibility while incorporating safeguards
and limitations to ensure a fair and just legal process.

Contempt Not Punishable in Certain Cases (Section 13)

Section 13 outlines specific conditions under which contempt of court may

not be punishable despite other laws.

- no court can impose a sentence for contempt unless it is satisfied that the
contempt's nature substantially interferes, or tends to substantially interfere,
with the due course of justice. This emphasizes that the contempt must have
a significant impact on the judicial process to warrant punishment.

- Grants the court the authority to permit justification by truth as a valid

defence in any contempt proceeding. However, this permission is subject to
two conditions:

The court must be satisfied that allowing the defence is in the public interest.

The request to invoke this defence must be made in good faith (bona fide).

This provision acknowledges the importance of truth as a defence in certain

cases and ensures that it aligns with public interest while preventing its
misuse.

Section 13 establishes criteria for determining whether contempt of court is

punishable. It highlights the need for a substantial interference with the due
course of justice and provides a provision for truth as a defence, subject to
the court's satisfaction regarding public interest and the bona fide nature of
the request.
Contempt power of courts

The contempt power of a court refers to its authority to penalize individuals or entities for
actions that disrespect or defy the court's authority, obstruct its proceedings, or disregard its
orders. Contempt of court can take various forms, including disobedience to court orders,
disrespectful behavior in the courtroom, or any act that undermines the dignity and authority
of the court.

Courts wield this power to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system, uphold the
rule of law, and maintain respect for the legal process. The contempt power is a means for the
court to protect itself, preserve the integrity of its proceedings, and prevent interference that
could hinder the administration of justice.

The contempt power is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously. There are legal
safeguards in place to ensure that individuals facing contempt charges have the right to be
heard and present a defense. This helps prevent the arbitrary use of contempt powers and
ensures a fair and just legal process.

In India, the contempt power of courts is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
This legislation outlines the powers of the courts to punish for contempt, and provides the
procedures for initiating contempt proceedings. Here are some key points regarding the
contempt power of courts in India:

1. Punishment for Contempt: Section 12 of the Act empowers the courts to punish
contempt with simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months or with
a fine that may extend to two thousand rupees or with both.

2. Initiation of Proceedings: Contempt proceedings can be initiated either suo motu by

the court (on its own motion) or on a petition made by the Attorney General or the
Advocate General or by any other person with the consent in writing of the Attorney
General or the Advocate General.
3. Defenses and Safeguards: The Contempt of Courts Act provides certain defenses
against contempt, including the publication of any fair comment made in good faith
on the merits of any case, or on the conduct of any person concerned in the case. The
Act also emphasizes the importance of fair criticism and provides safeguards to
ensure that contempt powers are not used arbitrarily.

4. Appellate Jurisdiction: Section 19 of the Act allows appeals to be filed against

orders of the High Court in cases of contempt, either by the person found guilty or by
the person initiating the contempt proceedings.