Contempt of Court Act, 1971- Historical development of Contempt of Court Act

in India
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is an important legislation in India that deals with
the offense of contempt of court. It outlines the powers of the judiciary to punish
individuals for actions that can interfere with the administration of justice. To
understand the historical development of this act, let's take a look at its background
and key milestones:
British Era: The concept of contempt of court was inherited from the British legal
system during the colonial period. The British law on contempt of court, primarily
based on common law principles, was applicable in India.
Indian Constitution: After India gained independence in 1947, the Constitution of
India was adopted in 1950. Article 129 and Article 215 of the Indian Constitution
grant the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively the power to punish for
contempt of court. However, the Constitution did not provide a detailed framework for
contempt of court proceedings.
Contempt of Court Act, 1952: In 1952, the Parliament of India enacted the first
legislation specifically addressing contempt of court, known as the Contempt of Court
Act, 1952. This act provided a statutory framework for defining and dealing with
contempt of court. However, it was criticized for its limitations and certain
ambiguities.
Law Commission Reports: In the subsequent years, the Law Commission of India
issued several reports highlighting the need for a comprehensive legislation to address
issues related to contempt of court. These reports analyzed the existing law, suggested
reforms, and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between safeguarding
judicial dignity and protecting freedom of speech and expression.
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: Based on the recommendations of the Law
Commission, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was enacted by the Parliament of
India. This act repealed the earlier 1952 act and provided a more detailed framework
for dealing with contempt of court. It defined civil and criminal contempt, outlined the
procedures for contempt proceedings, and specified the powers and limitations of the
courts in punishing contempt.
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as amended from time to time, continues to be the
primary legislation governing contempt of court in India. It aims to ensure the
authority and dignity of the judiciary while also balancing the fundamental rights of
individuals, including freedom of speech and expression. The act has undergone
judicial interpretation and has been refined through various court judgments over the
years to clarify its provisions and strike a fair balance between the competing interests
involved.

1
Object and Constitutional validity of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, explain in
detail
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 serves two primary objectives: to uphold the
authority and dignity of the courts and to strike a balance between the freedom of
speech and expression and the need to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Let's explore these objectives and the constitutional validity of the Act in detail:
Upholding Authority and Dignity of Courts:
The act aims to ensure that the judiciary is able to function effectively and
independently without any undue interference. It protects the courts from actions or
statements that may scandalize, lower the authority of the judiciary, obstruct the
administration of justice, or hamper the fair and impartial trial process. By punishing
acts of contempt, the act seeks to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and
preserve its integrity.
Balancing Freedom of Speech and Expression:
While the act emphasizes the authority of the courts, it also takes into consideration
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The act acknowledges that criticism of judicial
actions or decisions should not be stifled, as it is essential for the functioning of a
healthy democracy. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable
restrictions, including contempt of court laws, in the interest of upholding the
administration of justice.
Constitutional Validity:
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has been subject to constitutional scrutiny, and its
validity has been upheld by the judiciary. Here are the key aspects of its constitutional
validity:
Article 19(2) of the Constitution:
The Contempt of Court Act derives its constitutional validity from Article 19(2) of the
Constitution, which allows for imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of
speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of
the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in
relation to contempt of court.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in interpreting and upholding
the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Court Act. The courts have held that
contempt proceedings are necessary to protect the independence of the judiciary and
maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. They have emphasized
that the act should be interpreted and applied in a manner that strikes a balance
2
between protecting the dignity of the courts and safeguarding the freedom of speech
and expression.
Safeguards and Procedural Fairness:
To ensure the constitutional validity of the Act, it provides for certain safeguards and
procedural fairness. It lays down specific procedures for initiating contempt
proceedings, including providing notice to the alleged contemnor and an opportunity
to be heard. The Act also allows for appeals against contempt orders, ensuring that
individuals have a mechanism to challenge any alleged violation of their rights.
It is important to note that the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is not immune to
criticism, and debates have arisen regarding its scope, potential misuse, and the need
for certain reforms. However, its constitutional validity has been recognized by the
judiciary, which has emphasized that it must be applied judiciously to protect the
administration of justice without unduly infringing upon the freedom of speech and
expression.
Definition, Kinds of Contempt Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers and
other persons ,explain in detail with respect to Advocates act 1971
Contempt of court refers to any act or behavior that undermines or disrespects the
authority, dignity, or functioning of the court or obstructs the administration of justice.
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in India, provides a framework to deal with
contemptuous acts. Let's explore the definition of contempt and the different kinds of
contempt with respect to the Advocates Act, 1971:
Definition of Contempt:
Under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt of court is defined
as the "civil contempt" or "criminal contempt":
Civil Contempt: It refers to willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ, or other processes of a court, or willful breach of an undertaking given to
the court.
Criminal Contempt: It includes any act or publication that scandalizes or lowers the
authority of the court, prejudices or interferes with the administration of justice, or
obstructs the process of any court.
Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers, and Other Persons:
Contempt by Judges and Magistrates: Section 17 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
specifies that judges and magistrates can also be held in contempt if they willfully
disobey or fail to comply with any order, direction, or process of the court. This
provision ensures that even the judiciary is held accountable for their actions.
Contempt by Lawyers: Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1971, deals specifically with
the misconduct of advocates, including instances of contempt of court. Advocates are
3
expected to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court while presenting their
cases. If an advocate engages in contemptuous behavior, such as making derogatory
remarks about the court, disrupting proceedings, or attempting to interfere with the
administration of justice, they can be held in contempt.
Contempt by Other Persons: The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, applies to all
individuals, whether they are parties to a case, witnesses, or members of the public. If
any person indulges in contemptuous acts, such as making scandalous statements
against the court, intimidating witnesses, or interfering with the functioning of the
court, they can be held in contempt.
Cognizence, Procedure, Appellate provisions regarding Contempt Defences
,explain in detail with respect to Advocates act 1971
When it comes to the cognizance, procedure, appellate provisions, and defenses
related to contempt of court, including those specified in the Advocates Act, 1971, the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 provides the relevant guidelines. Let's explore these
aspects in detail:
Cognizance of Contempt:
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt of court can be
initiated either suo motu by the court (on its own motion) or on a motion made by any
individual or authority, including the Advocate General or Attorney General. The court
has the discretion to take cognizance of the alleged contempt and proceed with the
contempt proceedings.
Procedure for Contempt Proceedings:
The procedure for contempt proceedings is outlined in the Contempt of Court Act,
1971. The Act lays down the following general principles:
Notice: Before initiating contempt proceedings, the court is required to issue a notice
to the alleged contemnor, informing them of the contempt charges and providing them
an opportunity to explain their position.
Opportunity to be Heard: The alleged contemnor has the right to be heard and present
their defense against the contempt charges. They can submit their explanations,
evidence, or arguments to contest the allegations.
Burden of Proof: The burden of proving contempt lies on the person alleging the
contempt. They need to establish that the contemnor's actions or statements meet the
criteria of contempt as defined by the Contempt of Court Act.
Standard of Proof: The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond
reasonable doubt, meaning that the court should be satisfied of the guilt of the
contemnor based on clear and convincing evidence.

4
Judgment and Punishment: If the court finds the contemnor guilty of contempt, it has
the power to impose appropriate punishment, which may include imprisonment, fine,
or both.
Appellate Provisions:
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 also provides for appellate provisions. A person
aggrieved by a contempt order has the right to appeal against the order. The appellate
provisions include:
High Court: Appeals against the orders of the subordinate courts lie with the
respective High Court.
Supreme Court: Appeals against the orders of the High Court lie with the Supreme
Court of India.
These appellate provisions ensure that individuals have a mechanism to challenge the
contempt orders if they believe that there has been an error in the judgment or there
are grounds for reversal or modification.
Defenses in Contempt Proceedings:
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 recognizes certain defenses that can be raised by the
alleged contemnor to contest the contempt charges. Some of the common defenses
include:
Truth as Justification: If the alleged contemnor can establish that the statements or
actions were true and made in public interest, they can be considered as a defense in
certain cases.
Fair Criticism: Constructive criticism of the court's actions or decisions, made in good
faith, without malice, and in the interest of justice, may also be considered as a valid
defense.
Bonafide Errors: If the contemnor can show that the contemptuous act was
unintentional or resulted from a bonafide error or misunderstanding, it may serve as a
defense.
However, it is important to note that the availability and acceptance of these defenses
may vary depending on the circumstances of each case, and the court will ultimately
determine their validity and applicability.
Punishment and Remedies against punishment for Contempt of Court and
Punishment for Contempt, explain in detail with respect to Advocates act 1971
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 specifies the punishments and remedies for
contempt of court, including those applicable to advocates, as outlined in the
Advocates Act, 1971. Let's explore these aspects in detail:
Punishment for Contempt of Court:

5
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 provides for both civil and criminal contempt, each
with its respective punishment:
Civil Contempt: In case of civil contempt, the court has the power to impose penalties,
including admonition, fine, or imprisonment. The purpose of civil contempt
punishment is to ensure compliance with court orders, directions, or undertakings.
Criminal Contempt: Criminal contempt involves acts or publications that scandalize or
lower the authority of the court, prejudice or interfere with the administration of
justice, or obstruct the process of any court. For criminal contempt, the court can
impose imprisonment of up to six months or fine, or both.
Remedies against Punishment for Contempt of Court:
If a person is found guilty of contempt of court and is subjected to punishment, the
following remedies are available:
Review: The contemnor has the right to seek a review of the contempt order by the
same court that issued it. The review process allows for a re-examination of the order
and may result in a modification or reversal of the punishment.
Appeal: An appeal can be filed against the contempt order before the appropriate
appellate court. If the contempt order is from a subordinate court, the appeal can be
made to the High Court. If it is from the High Court, the appeal can be made to the
Supreme Court.
Suspension of Sentence: The court may, upon the contemnor's application, suspend
the sentence of imprisonment pending the disposal of the appeal. This allows the
contemnor to avoid immediate imprisonment until the appeal is decided.
Pardon or Remission: The President of India or the Governor of a state has the power
to grant pardon, reprieve, or remission of the punishment imposed for contempt of
court, subject to applicable legal provisions.
Punishment for Contempt under the Advocates Act, 1971:
The Advocates Act, 1971 also addresses the issue of contempt of court specifically
related to advocates. Section 35 of the Act deals with professional misconduct, which
includes contemptuous behavior by an advocate. If an advocate is found guilty of
contempt, the appropriate disciplinary authority, such as the Bar Council, can impose
penalties, including admonition, suspension, or removal from the roll of advocates.
It is important to note that contempt proceedings, including punishments and
remedies, are subject to the discretion of the court or the disciplinary authority,
depending on the nature and severity of the contemptuous act. The court considers
factors such as the gravity of the contempt, the intention behind the act, the impact on
the administration of justice, and the presence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances while determining the appropriate punishment or granting remedies.

6
Defences under contempt of court, explain in detail with respect to Advocates act
1971
Under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, and specifically with respect to the
Advocates Act, 1971, certain defenses can be raised by the alleged contemnor to
contest the charges of contempt of court. These defenses provide a basis for justifying
or mitigating the alleged contemptuous behavior. Let's explore some common
defenses in detail:
Truth as Justification:
One of the defenses available in contempt proceedings is the truth of the statements or
actions alleged to be contemptuous. If the alleged contemnor can establish that the
statements or actions were true and made in the public interest, it may be considered a
valid defense. However, it is important to note that this defense is not absolute and
may have limitations depending on the context and impact of the alleged
contemptuous behavior.
Fair Criticism:
Fair criticism of the court's actions or decisions, made in good faith, without malice,
and in the interest of justice, is generally recognized as a valid defense in contempt
proceedings. The courts understand that criticism plays a crucial role in a democratic
society and the functioning of the justice system. However, it is essential that the
criticism is constructive and does not cross the line into personal attacks or
scandalization of the court.
Bonafide Errors:
If the alleged contemptuous act was unintentional or resulted from a bonafide error or
misunderstanding, it may serve as a valid defense. For instance, if an advocate
inadvertently violates a court order due to a genuine misunderstanding or lack of
knowledge, it can be considered a mitigating factor. However, the court will assess the
credibility of such a defense based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Lack of Intent or Malice:
Contempt proceedings require a demonstration of willful intent or malice behind the
contemptuous act. If the alleged contemnor can establish that there was no deliberate
intention to undermine or disrespect the court's authority or obstruct the administration
of justice, it may serve as a defense. Lack of malicious intent can be a mitigating
factor considered by the court while determining the appropriate punishment or
granting relief.
It is important to note that the availability and acceptance of these defenses may vary
depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The court has the
ultimate authority to assess the validity of the defenses raised and determine their
applicability.
7
Additionally, the Advocates Act, 1971, also sets out a separate code of conduct for
advocates. Any misconduct, including contemptuous behavior, can be dealt with under
the disciplinary provisions of the Act. The Act places a duty on advocates to maintain
the dignity and decorum of the court while representing their clients. Advocates found
guilty of contempt can face disciplinary actions, such as admonition, suspension, or
removal from the roll of advocates.