CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

Contempt may be defined as any act or omission which rings about disgrace, dishonor
or disrespect to any person or institution. According to Oswald, “Contempt of Court
refers to any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into
disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witness during
litigation”. While Halsbury 1 defines Contempt of Court as those words, whether
spoken or written, which obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is the result of giving legislative authority to the
Supreme Courts and High Courts of India to persecute people for contempt of court.
The enactment gets its legislative backing from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution
of India

Contempt Of Court in the Indian Constitution

The concept of contempt of court is enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article
129 and Article 215 where the Supreme Court and High Court can respectively hold
anyone accountable for contempt of itself.

Article 129: Supreme Court to be a court of record - The Supreme Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself\

Article 215: High Courts to be courts of record - Every High Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for
contempt of itself.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is the Indian legislation that governs the contempt
laws of the state. While the enactment does not define what exactly ‘contempt of court’
is, it does state what does and does not constitute as contempt of court in the Indian
legal system and also the procedure to prosecute a person under the enactment.

Section 2(a) states that Contempt of Court means Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt.

1
Halsbury’s Law of England
Civil Contempt:

Defined under Sec 2(b), civil contempt refers to “wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court.”

Hence, it may be established that there are 2 ingredients that have to be satisfied in
order to be prosecuted for civil contempt of court:

1.Disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of

a court or any undertaking given to a court.
2.Such disobedience or breach should be wilful and deliberate.

Criminal Contempt

Defined under Section 2(c), criminal contempt refers to “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 tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,

any court, or
ii) Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding, or
iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner”

For a person to be held accountable for Criminal contempt, the following essentials to
be proved are:

1.Publication of matter – by word (spoken or written), by signs, by visible

representation or any other action or omission.
2.Such publication should scandalize or lower the authority of the court, or
3.Such publication should prejudice or interfere or should tend to interfere with the
due course of judicial proceeding, or
4.Should obstruct or interfere, or tends to obstruct or interfere with administration of
justice in any manner.

What actions or inactions may constitute a criminal contempt in India?

 1. Defamatory allegations against a judge or an entire court2
2. Filing of a false affidavit3
3. A strike that prevents presiding officer of the court, its staff, police officers and
the parties to approach the court4

Punishment for Contempt Of Court

Sec 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 extensively deals with the punishment
for those persecuted under the act. Sec 12(1) states that the general punishment for
contempt is simple imprisonment for a term up to 6 months or fine of Rs. 2,000, or
with both. Such punishment may be remitted if an apology is made to the satisfaction
of the court.

Sec 12(3) states that in cases of civil contempt where fine is not deemed enough of a
punishment for court, the court may detain the person in civil prisons for the tem not
exceeding 6 months.

Sec 12(4) states that when the contempt is done by a company, the court shall hold
each and every person accountable who was in charge and was responsible to the
company for its operations along with the company itself. Each and every one of
these persons, with leave of the court, is to be detained in a civil prison. If the person/s
in charge can prove that such contempt took place without his knowledge or that he
can prove that he exercised due diligence to ensure that no contempt took place, he
or she can be exempted by the court. Sec 12(5) further elaborates that all directors,
secretaries, managers and officers can also be held liable if they partake in the
contempt.

Remedies against the Punishment Order

1. Apology
The commenter may give a formal apology to the court and the court may remit the
punishment, if it believes that the apology was made with real sense of repentance
and regret. However, in AK. Pandey5, the court held that it is not mandatory for the

2
Dr. D. C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India
3
U.P Residential Employee Cooperative Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 990 AIR 1325,
1990 SCR (3) 64
4
J. R Parashar v. Prashant Bhushan IR 2001 SC 3315.
5
Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003
 court to accept the apology. It shall do so only if it believes in the repentance of the
condemner. In Haridas V. Smt. Usharani6 the contemnor’s apology was rejected on
the grounds that the person kept on stating in the proceedings that what he said was
true. The court stated that apology could not be used as a defense from punishment
but rather should be used to show actual remorse.
2. Appeal
Sec 19 of the Act governs the appeal by the contemnor. Appeals to the division bench
of the High Court is to be filed within 30 days and 60 days to the Supreme Court from
the date of the order appealed against. As per Sec 19(2) the Appellate Court or Bench
may pass an order that the
1. Execution of the punishment shall remain suspended
2. Issuance of bail to the appellant if he is imprisoned
3. Appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has perched his contempt.

Defences Available For Contempt Of Court

Civil Contempt

1. No Knowledge of the Order

The contemnor may plead that he had no knowledge of the order and that he had not
received the formal copy of the order.
2. The Contempt was not Wilful
It may be plead that disobedience of the order was not wilful and was done due to
administrative, accidental or other reasons. In these cases the court assesses the
intention of the parties and the circumstances surrounding such case and the act of an
ordinary prudent man in such circumstances.
3. The Order disobeyed is Vague
The ambiguity of the order may be plead as a defense, if the order is not specific. In
such cases the Supreme Court states that the parties should approach the original
court to rectify such ambiguity.
4. The order has been Passed without Jurisdiction
The order which is passed by a court which has no jurisdiction over it is void and
binds nobody. Hence, disobedience of such order cannot amount to contempt of court.

6
Appeal (civil) 7948 of 2004
Criminal Contempt

1. Publication and distribution was innocent

As per Sec 3, any person against whom criminal contempt proceedings are initiated
may take the following defenses:
a. Plead under Sec 3(1) that at the time of the publication he had no reasonable
ground to believe that the proceedings were still going on
b. Plead under Sec 3(2) that at the time of the publication no proceeding was
pending or ongoing
c. Plead under Sec 3(3) that at the time of publication he had no reasonable ground
of believing that such publication would lead to obstruction or interference in
pending proceeding or administration of justice.
2. Fair and true publication
Sec 4 of the Act states that any person whose publication which gives a true and fair
account of the judicial proceedings cannot be held liable for contempt of court. Sec
7 further provides that any publication which gives an accurate summary of the order
or part of the order made by court cannot be subjected to contempt proceeding unless
the court has expressly prohibited the same on the following ground:
a. Public Policy
b. Public Order
c. Security of State
d. Information relating to a secret process or invention
3. Fair criticism of judicial acts
Sec 5 declares that a person cannot be held guilty for contempt of court if he or she
publishes a fair criticism of the merits of a case already decided. This defense can
only be taken up when the publication is of a decided case not one whose proceedings
are still pending and such publication should not be accompanied with an ulterior
motive i.e. benefiting himself or the litigating parties.
4. Bonafide complaint about a Presiding Officer of a subordinate Court
S.6 provides that “a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any
statement made by him by way of complaint in good faith concerning the presiding
officer of any sub-ordinate court to the High Court or to the Court to which he is sub-
ordinate.” It is imperative that such a complaint should be made with good faith.
5. No substantive interference in the administration of justice
 The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act of 2006, substituted the previous Sec 13
with a new one which stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, no Court should impose a sentence for Contempt of Court
unless it is satisfied that the Contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes
or tends to interfere with the due course of justice.”
6. Truth
The contemnor may plead the defense of truth under Sec 13(2) if the statement is
bonafide and in public interest.

Limitation Period
Sec 20 governs the limitation period in initiating a contempt proceeding. In both civil
and criminal contempt case the limitation period is that of one year from the date on
which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Such proceeding may be
initiated by filing an application or by the court itself through suo-moto cognizance.
In criminal case the date of the contempt is the date where the publication was made
or distributed. But in civil contempt, the date of contempt is the date of contempt is
the last date by which the order needs to be complied with. If no time limit is given
in the order, the order needs to adhere to within “reasonable time” which is usually
interpreted as 3 months.

Landmark Judgments
1. Duda P.N. v. Shivshankar, P7
It was observed that the contempt jurisdiction provided to the Judges through Articles
129 and 215 should not be used to protect their own dignity. Through Article 19(1)(a),
a person is allowed to express free speech, even if it hampers the reputation of the
Judge as long as it does not interfere with the “administration of justice.”
2. Auto Shakar’s Case8
It was held that ‘Sullivan Doctrine’ is to be followed. The doctrine states that one
cannot be held for contempt of court as long as it is made with bonafide diligence,
even if the statements made are untrue.

7
AIR 1988, SC 1208 at 1213
8
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264
 3. Arundhati Roy Case9
In this case, the Supreme Court held that a fair criticism of Judges, the judiciary and
its functioning cannot be taken as contempt of court if made in good faith and in
public interest.
4. Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain10
In this case the Supreme Court stated that truth can be used as a valid defense for
contempt of court as long as the statement was made in public interest and that request
of invoking the defense was made in good faith.

Conclusion

Administration of justice is one of the key elements that lets our society proceed in
accordance with our Constitution. Anything that hampers or tends to hamper; or
interfere or tends to interfere with Courts power of dispensing justice amounts to
contempt of court. The Supreme Court and all High Courts are empowered by the
Constitution to keep a check on the same. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is an
enactment deterrent in nature. Such an Act is important to ensure that the justice
administered is followed to its core. But it is also extremely important to ensure that
the Judges do not use this power in an arbitrary manner and exercise judicial
overreach and accountability.

9
(2002) 3 SCC 343
10
(1993) 4 SCC 119