Contempt of Court

Table of Contents

Contempt of Court definition

Article 129
Article 142(2)
Origin of Contempt of Court
History of Law of Contempt in India
Contempts of Courts Act 1971 notes
Essentials of Contempt of Court
Types of Contempt of Court in India
Civil Contempt
Defences to Civil Contempt
Criminal Contempt
Punishment for Contempt of Court
Remedies against an order of Punishment
Contempt Proceedings
Contempt committed outside the court
Contempt by a Company
Liability of officer of the company
Contempt by the third party to the proceeding
Criminal contempt and criminal defamation proceedings
Limitation
Landmark Contempt Judgments
Famous cases of contempt
Compared with foreign Jurisdictions
United Kingdom
United States of America
Criticism of the power of contempt of court
Conclusion
Reference

Contempt of Court definition

“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. [1]
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.

This term can also be understood in terms of the freedom of limits of the judicial
proceeding. As we know that all judges in courts can give judicial proceedings which have
a certain limit in which it has the freedom to make any judicial proceeding and anything
which curtails or stops it in making any judicial proceeding which is of necessity can
amount to contempt of court.

Halsbury, Oswald, and Black Odgers have also given the definition of Contempt of Court
and in addition to that, they have talked about its misuse and its wrong interpretation and
also its broad prospectus.

In India, the concept of Contempt of Court is defined in Section 2(a) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 which has broadly describe it as civil contempt or criminal 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.
Origin of Contempt of Court
The legal system that we see today is the summit of the long journey which has started
from the divine rule that was in proclamation to the natural law and more further to the
positive law that we see today. 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. In the
English medieval ages the Judiciary was an important tool of the Monarch. At that time
these judges and legislatures were representatives of the divine rule monarchy and these
judges and legislatures played an important role in legitimizing the functions of these
monarchs. The king was the superior head of justice and this power he has given to the
judicial system and if anyone or the king himself disrespect or question the courts it
became a challenge to the superiority of the king and as well as to his wisdom. So, this can
be seen as although the source of the law has transformed in the society the
unquestionability quality that a king enjoyed was upheld by the monarchy. There is a case
of contempt against J. Almon in the year 1765; a statement was made by the Irish judge Sir
Eardley Wilmot in regard to this contempt attacks on the judges. In this case, Almon has
published a pamphlet libelling the decision of the bench of kings and the judgment given
by the judge had given rise to many questions of several aspects of the judiciary which had
not been questioned yet. This matter gives a great push in the establishment of the
contempt of court. This judgement also recognised that the unbiasedness is also one of the
features of the judiciary in making the decision which makes this institution different from
its peer institutions.

History of Law of Contempt in India

Sanyal Committee report deals with the historical aspect of the Law of Contempt in India.
This committee has been responsible for starting the amendment process in this law. The
law of contempt similar to many other laws has been brought from the English laws and
statutes but this law has not been absolutely taken from the English laws it has other
origins too. How has the indigenous development of contempt law taken place? It can be
understood by the age-old system which our country was having to protect court or
assemblies (sabhas) in the past. We know about the philosopher Kautilya, in his book
Arthashastra has written about the governance at that time. He has written that “Any
person who exposes the king or insults his council or make any type of bad attempt on the
kings then the tongue of that person should be cut off.” Adding to this statement, he also
said that “When a judge threatens, bully or make silence to any of the disputants in the
court then he should be punished.”

Until the year 1952, there were no statutory provisions for the contempt of court in India
but after the enactment of Contempt of Court Act, 1952 statutory provisions for contempt
of court in India has established. This Act extends to the whole of India except Jammu and
Kashmir. This Act gives power to the High Court to punish contempt of the subordinate
court. This Act has repealed the existing law from the Contempt of Court Act, 1926 that
was prevailing in the state of Rajasthan and the state of Saurashtra. Although this Act was
extended to the whole of Bangladesh. It can be surprising knowing that although these
Acts have been introduced earlier then also these Acts do not give the definition of the
term ‘Contempt’ and also there was still a lot of ambiguity present around the law of
contempt. This law has to be dealt with in light of two fundamental rights given by our
Indian Constitution and these rights are (i) freedom of speech and expression and (ii) right
to personal liberty.

There was a bill introduced in the Lok Sabha to make any changes or to make the existing
law relating to contempt more strong. This law was introduced by Shri B B Das Gupta on
1st of April 1960. The government after examining the bill discern the need for reform in
the existing Act. So, they made a special committee to look into the matter or inspect the
existing Act. This committee was set up in 1961, under the chairmanship of H.N. Sanyal
which gives its report on 28th February, 1963. The report of this committee took the form
of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The procedure and application of enactment something
that was done earlier by the Contempt of Court Act of 1926 and 1952 was given several
changes through the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. This Act segregates the ‘Contempt of
Court’ into criminal and civil contempt with their definition respectively. This thing was
not mentioned in the earlier existing courts. Now, let us know something about the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Contempts of Courts Act 1971 notes

This Act extended to the whole of India and it has also provided that this Act shall not
apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir except in certain conditions in which the
provision of the Act is connected to the Contempt of Supreme Court. Another thing is that
this Act provides the definition of Contempt of Court which has not been given by the
earlier Act of Contempt of Court. This Act under Section 2(a) defines Contempt of Court as
‘Civil Contempt’ and ‘Criminal Contempt’. There is a case of Noorali Babul Thanewala v.
K.M.M. Shetty [2] in which an undertaking was given to a Court in civil proceedings by a
person, on the faith that undertaking was correct the Court sanctions a course of action in
regard to that undertaking but the undertaking seems to be incorrect. Hence, this was
considered as misconduct and amount to Contempt of Court. In this act there are several
provisions given that it does not amount to Contempt of Court. Although, these provisions
have to be discussed later in this article some of them you should know at this point in
time. These are: (i) innocent publication of a matter or its distribution does not amount to
Contempt of Court. (ii) publishing of fair and accurate reports of the Judicial proceedings
does not amount to Contempt of Court. (iii) fair criticism on judicial acts does not amount
to Contempt of Court. Next, in this Act, the High Court has been given the power to make
decisions on the matter which is outside its jurisdiction. Punishment for Contempt of
Court has been given in this Act and also what type of misconduct not amount to
Contempt of Court has been given, how we can deal with that contempt has also been
given. The Judge, Magistrate or any other person who is acting judicially can also be
contempt for their actions. Also, this Act gives certain limitations where this Act does not
apply. This Act does not apply to the Courts of Nyaya Panchayat and other Courts of the
village. This Act repealed the old existing Act of Contempt of Court which came into force
in 1952.
Essentials of Contempt of Court
If a person named Akash has to prove that the other person named Sita is guilty of
committing an act which is an offence in a court of law. Then he has to show the court that
the offence which Sita has done is fulfilling the essential required to commit that act or
not. If the essentials of that will be fulfilled then he will be liable for that act. Similarly,
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 in India

Depending on the nature of the case in India, Contempt of Court is of two types.

1. Civil Contempt
2. Criminal Contempt
3. Civil Contempt
Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states Civil Contempt as wilful
disobedience to the order, decree, direction, any judgment or writ of the Court by any
person or willfully breach of undertakings by a person given to a Court. Since Civil
Contempt deprives a party of the benefit for which the order was made so these are the
offences essential of private nature. In other words, a person who is entitled to get the
benefit of the court order, this wrong is generally done to this person.

There is a case on the willful disobedience of the court order which a person should know.

Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup [3]

This is the case of non-rendering of assistance, although the court has ordered to render
assistance. Decree executed by the court to deliver immovable property but because of
certain obstruction, the defendant failed to do so. Hence, he was held liable for
constituting disobedience to the orders of the competent Civil Court.

Another case is on the breach of an undertaking which leads to Contempt of Court.

U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority [4]
In this case, the Supreme Court has directed the Noida Authorities to verify and state on
the affidavit details given by persons for allotment of plots. In pursuance to the same
direction by the Supreme Court a person Mr. S filed a false affidavit to mislead the court.
The Registry directed a show-cause notice against him to say that why an act of contempt
should not be taken against him for misleading the Supreme Court.

Defences to Civil Contempt

A person who is accused of Civil Contempt of case can take the following defences:

 Lack of Knowledge of the order: A person can not be held liable for Contempt
of Court if he does not know the order given by the court or he claims to be unaware
of the order. There is a duty binding on the successful party by the courts that the
order that has passed should be served to the Individual by the post or personally or
through the certified copy. It can be successfully pleaded by the contemner that the
certified copy of the order was not formally served to him.

 The disobedience or the breach done should not be : If someone is pleading

under this defence then he can say that the act done by him was not done willfully, it
was just a mere accident or he/she can say that it is beyond their control. But this
plead can only be successful if it found to be reasonable otherwise your plead can be
discarded.

 The order that has disobeyed should be vague or 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. In R.N. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh [5], this defence has been
taken by the respondent. In this case, the Supreme Court has directed the
corporation of the respondent to restore the promotion of the petitioner from a
particular date in the service. But the respondent has not produced the monetary
benefit for the given period and a complaint was filed against him for Contempt of
Court. He pleads for the defence on the given evidence that it has not mentioned by
the court in order to pay the monetary benefit. Finally, he gets the defence.

 Orders involve more than one reasonable interpretation: If the contempt

of any order declared by the court and the order seems to be given more than one
reasonable and rational interpretation and the respondent adopts one of those
interpretations and works in accordance with that then he will not be liable for
Contempt of Court.

 Command of the order is impossible: If compliance of the order is impossible or it

can not be done easily then it would be taken as a defence in the case of Contempt of
Court. However, one should differentiate the case of impossibility with the case of
mere difficulties. Because this defence can be given only in the case of the
impossibility of doing an order.
Criminal Contempt

According to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt is
Defined as (i) the publication of any matter by words, spoken or written, or by gesture, or
by signs, or by visible representation or (ii) doing of any act which includes:

1. a) Scandalize or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any

court, or
2. b) Biasness, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any type of
Judicial proceedings, or
3. c) obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or tend to interfere with the
administration of justice in any manner.
Case on Scandalizing the Court:

Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh [6]

In this case an advocate caste derogatory and scandalous attack on the judge of the High
Court. An application was filed an election petitioner in the High Court, who was an
advocate. He wanted to seek to stay for further arguments in an election petition and also
the transfer of election petitions. These things cause an attack on the judicial proceeding of
the High Court and had the tendency to scandalize the Court. It was held in this case that it
was an attempt to intimidate the judge of the High Court and cause an interface in the
conduct of a fair trial.

Punishment for Contempt of Court

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the punishment for Contempt of
Court. High Court and the Supreme Court have been given the power to punish someone
for the Contempt of Court. Section 12(1) of this Act states that a person who alleged with
the Contempt of Court can be punished with simple imprisonment and this imprisonment
can extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or can be
of both type punishment. However, an accused may be discharged or the punishment that
was awarded to him maybe remitted on the condition that if he makes an apology and this
apology should satisfy the court then only he can be exempted from the punishment of
Contempt of Court. Explanation of this sentence is that if the accused made an apology in
the bona fide then this apology shall not be rejected on the ground that it is conditional or
qualified.

The court can not impose a sentence for Contempt of Court in excess of what is prescribed
under the given section of this Act either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

Remedies against an order of Punishment

Section 13 has been added in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 after amendment in 2006.
The new Act may be called The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006. This Section
tells that contempt of court cannot be punished under certain circumstances or certain
cases.
Clause (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that no
Court under this Act shall be punished for Contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the
Contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tend to substantially
interfere with the due course of Justice.

Clause (b) of Section 13 of this Act states that the court may give the defence on the
justification of truth if it finds that the act done in the public interest and the request for
invoking that defence is bona fide.

Contempt Proceedings
Two Sections of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the procedure of Contempt
proceeding. One talks about the proceeding in the face of the court of records and other
talks about the proceedings other than the court of records.

Section 14 of the Contempt of Court deals with the procedure of contempt proceeding in
the face of the court of record whereas Section 15 of this Act deals with the procedure of
the contempt proceeding outside the court of records.

These courts of record have got the power to punish for its contempt inherently. Therefore,
these courts of record can deal with the matter of content by making their own
procedure. While exercising the contempt jurisdiction by the courts of record the only case
to be observed is that the procedure adopted must be fair and reasonable in which the
alleged contemnor should be given full opportunity to defend himself. If the specific
charge against the person who is punished for the contempt is distinctly stated and he is
given a reasonable opportunity to answer and to defend himself against the charge then
only he will be liable for contempt of court and the court proceeding runs against him.
Where the person charged with contempt under this section applies whether orally or in
writing to have the charge against him, tried by some judge other than the judge or judges
in whose presence or hearing the contempt is alleged to have been committed and the
court is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the application
should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be transferred before such judge as the Chief
Justice may think fit and proper under the circumstances of the case or placed before the
Chief Justice with the statement of facts of the case.

Contempt committed outside the court

Criminal Contempt rather than Civil Contempt committed outside the Court. Section
15(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the notice of Criminal Contempt by
Court of Record such as the Supreme Court and the High Court. Following manners can be
taken by the Supreme Court and the High Court for cognizance of the Criminal Contempt:

1. On the motion of court of records.

2. On the motion of the Advocate General of the Supreme Court and the High Court.
3. If any person proceeds the motion with the consent of the Advocate General in
writing.
 4. If the law officer who is related to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi as
the Central Government notify proceeds the motion. Then it can be considered as
contempt committed outside the court.
Section 15(2) of this Act states that in the criminal contempt of the subordinate court, the
high court may take certain actions in the manner given in this Act.

Contempt by a Company
In case any person is found guilty of contempt of court for any undertaking given to a court
while he is a member of the company. Then the person who at that time was in charge of
that company will be responsible for the conduct of the business of that company and shall
be deemed to be guilty of the contempt. The punishment may be enforced by the detention
in the civil prison of such person with the leave of the court

However, that person can be free from liability if such person proves that the contempt
was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all possible means to prevent
its commission.

Liability of officer of the company

If the contempt of court has been committed by a company and it is provided that the
contempt has been committed with the consent of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officers of the company, then such
persons shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment will be
enforced against them by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary
or other officer with the leave of the court.

Contempt by the third party to the proceeding

If a third party has a part to play in the offence then the third party to the offence may be
guilty of contempt of court and proceeding can initiate against him. In LED Builders Pty
Ltd v Eagles Homes Pty Ltd [7] Lindgren J stated:

“It is not necessary to show that a person who has breached the order of the court can be
liable for contempt of court but the only necessary thing to confirm his liability for
contempt is to show that the person knew of the order which was breached.”

In another case of M/S. Gatraj Jain & Sons v. Janakiraman [8] it has been stated about
the third party to the proceeding that if a third party to the contempt petition found to be
wilfully disobeying the court order then he cannot prevent the court from restoring
the status quo.

Criminal contempt and criminal defamation proceedings

A question has been asked by the person that can an action for criminal contempt and
criminal defamation initiated simultaneously. This can be understood by knowing the
concept of Criminal contempt and criminal defamation. Earlier, in this article, we have
talked about Criminal Contempt. But for an overview, we should know what does a
criminal contempt mean. According to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971,
criminal contempt is defined as (i) the publication of any matter by words, spoken or
written, or by gestures, or by signs, or by visible representation or (ii) doing of any act
which includes:

1. a) Scandalize or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any

court, or
2. b) Biasness, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any type of
Judicial proceedings, or
3. c) obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or tend to interfere with the
administration of justice in any manner.
Now, we will know the concept of criminal defamation.

The definition of criminal defamation has been given under Section 499 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. It states about defamation that “Whoever, by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to
believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in
the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”

There are certain exceptions of criminal defamation and these are:

1. If the publication of anything is in truth and for public good then it cannot be
treated as defamation.
2. When a person touches any public questions then for that he cannot be liable.
3. If the publication is of the reports of the proceedings of the court.
As the right to reputation is an important facet of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, hence, the aim of the criminal
defamation is to prevent a person from maligning harming the reputation of others by
using absurd or malign words with malafide intentions.

In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Law and
Ors. [9] the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation was upheld.

Limitation
Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the limitation for the action of
Contempt. It states that no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt in two
conditions:

1. Either the proceedings are on his own motion, or,

2. After the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have
been committed.

Landmark Contempt Judgments

  Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr [10]
In this case, the Judge held that procedural aspect for Contempt of Court may still be
prescribed by the Parliament so that it could be applicable in the Supreme Court and the
High Court. This means that Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which
prescribed a maximum fine of Rs. 5000 and imprisonment for a term of six months shall
be applicable in this case.

 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors[11]

It was held in this case that the punishment that is given for contempt in the Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 shall only be applicable to the High Court but for Supreme Court, it acts as
a guide. The judgment that was given was not accompanied by rationality, this was
worrisome because the Supreme Court has been given great powers that the drafters of the
Indian Constitution has also not given.

 Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.[12]

This case is also similar to the Supreme Court Bar Association Case. In this case also once
again the Supreme Court declared that the powers to punish for contempt are inherent in
nature and the provision of the Constitution only recognised the said pre-existing
situation.

The provision of the Contempt of Court cannot be used to limit the exercise of jurisdiction
given in Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution.

Famous cases of contempt

 P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others[13]

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the judges cannot use the contempt
jurisdiction for upholding their own dignity. Our country is the free marketplace of ideas
and no one could be restricted to criticise the judicial system unless this criticism hampers
the ‘administration of justice’.

 R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N[14]

This case is also known as the Auto Shankar case; in this case, Justice Jeevan Reddy
invoked the very famous doctrine of John Sullivan. This doctrine states that public must
be open to strict comments and accusations as long as made with bonafide diligence, even
if it is untrue.

 In Re: Arundhati Roy [15]

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the fair criticism on the conduct of a Judge
or the institution of Judiciary and its function may not amount to contempt if it is made in
good faith and in the public interest.

 Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain[16]

In this case, the Supreme court observed that the defence of truth can be permitted to the
person accused of contempt if the two conditions are satisfied. These are: (i) if it is in the
interest of public and (ii) the request for invoking the said defence is bonafide. These are
given in Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
  Justice Karnan’s case
He was the first sitting High Court Judge to be jailed for six months on the accusation of
Contempt of Court. In February 2017, contempt of court proceeding was initiated against
him after he accused twenty Judges of the Higher Judiciary of Corruption. He wrote a
letter to PM Modi against this but he did not provide any evidence against them.

Compared with foreign Jurisdictions

United Kingdom

There was no conviction for the offence of Scandalizing the Court from the common law in
England since 1993. The origin of contempt by scandalizing the court can be traced back to
1765. The case of King v. Almon,[17] in which the Almon faced judicial trial against him
for libel against a judge. Justice Wilmort, in this case, gives special punishment to Almon
for libel and from here the scandalizing a court became a form of Contempt of Court.
Around a hundred years later the above case, Lord Morris in the case McLeod v.
St.Aubin[18] made a very wonderful statement that for contempt by scandalizing has
become outdated and in place of that the court should leave on the public opinion whether
the attacks or contempt that are derogatory or scandalous to the Judiciary or not.
However, within a year, his words about the contempt by scandalizing being old or
outdated and this has proved false in another case of Queen v. Grey[19]. In this case, it has
been conceded by the court that the judiciary is still open to criticism by the media, but it
should qualify the statement “ reasonable arguments or expostulation” must be offered to
treat a statement as a contempt.

United States of America

This country has considered the offence of contempt by scandalizing to be too extreme.
Every criticism that we do to the judiciary undermines the authority of the Court. Right to
freely comment or criticise the action of a public institution is of primary importance to
the public and also for the American idea of Democracy. For abolishing the offence of
contempt by scandalizing, the UK consultation paper relied on the landmark decision of
the US Supreme Court decision in case Bridges v. California[20]. This offence has been
considered unconstitutional in the United States of America.

Criticism of the power of contempt of court

The discretion that a judge has in determining the contempt and its punishment has been
a debatable issue in the eyes of some scholars because the contempt power has given too
much authority to the Judges. A professor from Virginia University has about this
contempt power that the role of victim, judge, and prosecutor are dangerously mixed.

Much of the criticism goes around the due process or lack of restraint in the punishment
for contempt of court. Critics have argued that the judge in the Criminal contempt may be
too harsh while giving the Judgment. For example, in 1994, the Virginia Court has fined
Mine Workers of America $52 million in connection in violence that occurred in 1989.
Similarly, sometimes the person who refused to provide the information to the court has
been to jail for one year or for many years under the charge of contempt. There is some
loophole in this context and it should be fulfilled.

Apart from criticism there are also some good things about contempt. Contempt of Court
Act, 1971 is one of the most powerful statutes in the country. This statute gives the
Constitutional Court the wide power to restrict an individual’s fundamental rights to
personal liberty (that he got under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) for ‘scandalizing
the court’ or willfully disobeying the court’s order, judgment, decree, and direction, etc.

Conclusion
The existing role relating to ex facie contempt of lower courts is unsatisfactory and
misleading in India. It appears that evidently, the difficulties in this regard are the after
product of overlap of contempt powers under the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts
Act and contempt powers of the Supreme Court and High Court under the Indian
constitution. The scenario has emerged as more complicated by way of the inconsistent
interpretations followed through the Supreme Court and High Court regarding diverse
provisions under the Indian Penal Code dealing with interference with the administration
of justice and exclusion clause contained in the Contempt of Courts Act. Not only the
higher court should be given the power to deal with contempt but also the lower court
should be given this power. Contempt of Court if seen from the perspective of the judges,
higher judicial officials seems good but if it comes to the perspective of common people it
turns towards its bad effect.

Reference

 Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd, [1973] 3 W.L.R. 298.

 Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, AIR 1990 S.C. 464

 Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup, AIR 2008 Gau 62: 2008 (2) Gau
LR 706

 U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority, AIR 2003 SC 2723

 R.N. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1171

 Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 5332(NCE) of 1993

 LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagles Homes Pty Ltd, [1999] FCA 1213

 M/S. Gatraj Jain & Sons v. Janakiraman, Patent Appeal No.1 of 2009

 Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Law and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0621/2016

 Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr, AIR 1998 SC 1895
 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors, (2004) 4 SCC 158

 Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 516

 P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others, 1988 AIR 1208

 R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N, 1995 AIR 264

 In Re:Arundhati Roy…. … vs — on, 2002 AIR (SCW) 1210

 Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain, NO.9 OF 2009

 King v. Almon, 243 K.B. 1765

 McLeod v. St.Aubin, [1899] A.C. 549 ( Hereinafter, “Aubyn”)

 Queen v. Grey, 1900 2 Q.B. 36

 Bridges v. California, 314 US 252 (1941)