LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS of THE CONTEMPTS of

COURT ACT 1971

INTRODUCTION
Contempt of court is the offence of being disobedient to a court.
Being impudent to legal authorities in the courtroom or wilfully
failing to obey a court order may attract Contempt of Court
proceedings. A judge may impose punishment such as a fine or
jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Any act that
makes the authority and administration of Law contempt or
discount or to impede with or prejudice parties or their witnesses
during lawsuit. Words spoken or written which obstruct or tend
to obstruct the administration of justice publishing words which
tend to bring the administration of Justice into contempt, to
prejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which is the
subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in any way to
barricade the cause of Justice. The Common has divided
contempt of court into two categories - Civil and Criminal. In
the simplest terms civil contempt is committed when an order of
the court made in civil proceedings is disobeyed. More often
than not its procedures are invoked by a party in whose favour
an order has been made who wants to see it enforced.
 OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

The people of India have a lot of faith in the judiciary which is

primarily entrusted with the duty of administering justice. The
primary purpose of giving courts contempt jurisdiction is then to
uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts and their image in
the minds of the public. If such confidence and faith were
allowed to be shaken then this would have serious repercussions
on the justice delivery system of our country. The law of
contempt provides the necessary tool to the courts to check
unwarranted attacks or efforts at undermining the Rule of Law.
The Hadi Hussain J. in Re Nasir Uddin Haider, said that the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been enacted in order to
remove doubts which have arisen as to the powers of a High
Court. The object and purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to
uphold the majesty and dignity of law courts and their majesty
in the minds of public and that this is in no way whittled down.
If, by contumacious words or writing, the common man is led to
lose his respect for the judge, acting in the discharge of its
judicial duties, then the confidence reposed in the course of
justice is rudely shaken and the offender must be punished. In
essence, the law of contempt is the protector of the seat of
justice more than a person of the judge sitting in that seat.

The Apex Court in Mohammed Yamin v. Om Prakash Bansal,

held that the law of contempt of court is not the law for the
protection of judges or to place them in a position of immunity
from criticism. It is law of the protection of the freedom of
individuals. Everyone in a well versed community is entitled to
the protection of a free and independent administration of justice.
It is for the press to enlighten the public on what has been done
in the branch of Government fairly and firmly, to criticise, what
has been done where criticism appears to be warranted, but
never attempt to influence the course of justice or to undermine
the faith of those who live under protection of the law and the
impartial authority of the courts. The press is justified in making
free and fair criticism. The hall of justice is not a cloistered
virtue. In fact, for justice, to shine with its pristine luster, it must
be bold, free and subject to public scrutiny. So, ifthe press does
criticize some public aspects of a judgment, e.g., in the realm of
interpretation of law, severity of sentence, etc., it cannot be
contempt. But if there is an attack on the integrity of judges by
imputing motive dishonesty or incompetence, arbitrariness or
want of independence to a judge, it would be exceeding free a
fair criticism by the press.
The Supreme Court in State v. Rajeshwari Prasad, held that
the aim of the law of contempt was to protect those whose duty
it was to administer justice between man and man by true and
proper interpretation of law, from insults, annoyance and even
obstruction. Persons who seek justice and persons who help in
the administration of justice are all entitled to be protected.

SCOPE OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

It is very much necessary to assess the scope of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, because the title of the Act often misleads
people to think that this piece of legislation tends to protect the
court and the fraternity of lawyers and judges, thereby keeping
them above law. Given that the judiciary is both the prosecutor
and the adjudicator, it often leads this legislation to be
misconstrued as a veil of protection for the courts from external
criticism. In fact, if it were so, then it would be nothing but an
abuse of the powers of the judiciary and a neglect of the very
ideal of justice that it wishes to protect. The punishment under
the contempt law is inflicted not for the purpose of protecting
either the court as whole or individual judges from a repetition
of the attack but of protecting the public. Thus, contrary to the
aforementioned common perception, this act in no way hands
over superfluous power to the judiciary. Moreover, it must be
remembered that the power and jurisdiction of the courts under
this act falls under extra ordinary jurisdiction alone and this acts
as a check on the judiciary.

CONCLUSION
Contempt jurisdiction is applied for maintaining the majesty of
law and also to assert impartial and uninterrupted administration
of justice. The Constitution gives power to the judiciary and all
public power is held as a trust. If the judges breach this trust
they are required to pay for it. The judicature is a noble and
never-ending institution. If judges frivolously bring the judicial
institution into shame, they are required to be condemned. The
judiciary is a magnanimous authority, elegant and majestic, and
it sustains the belief of the nation. But if the judiciary behaves as
crème de la crème
and dis-affirms the rights of the general masses, they have to
face accountable criticism. The best ammunition of a judge is
his character of integrity, virtue and learning. Any judge will
hardly require the contempt power if the law of contempt can be
more specified. The purpose of the law of contempt is neither to
boastfully condemn a true criticism nor to defend the authority
and dignity of the judges. Moreover, the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 is still ambiguous at various aspects of law and there is a
need to be delineating its jurisdiction to maintain the supremacy
of rule of law. Rule of law is a sine qua non for a functionally
conscious democracy. Hence, the aspects of contempt of court
are again needed to be reformed to uphold the dignity of the
judicature. The final question that is still unanswered is: how far
the Indian courts have succeeded in the exquisite task of
balancing the conflicting values-one, protecting the freedom of
speech and expression as mentioned in the constitution and the
other upholding the integrity and dignity of the court. Tolerance
to criticism is a merit and is a sign of maturity. The Indian
Judiciary, though reluctant and over-sensitive in the early
periods, now appears to have reached a level of maturity which
can tolerate criticism; but which never allows irresponsible
attempts to lower its dignity. This can be seen as the positive
face of the coin but when this power of the judiciary is looked
from the angle of rule of law then this is again a major point of
concern.