Constitutional Powers of Supreme Court & High Courts to Punish

sh for

Above discussion makes it clear that the Contempt

Contemga ot Co
the Constitution and
Court Act
violative of any provisions of on
that account
constitutionality of the Act is sustained.
2. Constitutional provisions vis-a-vis Contempt of Courts Act

Another important issue in this context is how far the provisinn

of
of Courts Act regulate/restrict the powers or Supreme Court and
Cotlen
Hig
enjoyed by these Courts by virtue of Articles 129 and 215 of th
he
C
respectively? Consitsisn
In R.L Kapur v. State of Madras, the Apex Court observed
inherent power or jurisdiction of the Court to punish for contemnt of r
not derived from any statutory law relating to contempt. Such power parake
Coun w
artakes te
character of constitutional power and hence no law made by a legislature
e cold
take away such jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court and the High
Coun
In American Jurisprudence, 17 Am, Jur, 2d 65, it is stated that if a Court deri
detivas
its powers from the Constitution, the Court's power to punish for contem
cannot be taken away by the legislature.

In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat",it was contend

that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
jurisdiction with respecttotr
contempt ofa subordinate Court was vested in the High Court and therefore, t
Supreme Court does not have such jurisdiction. Refuting the contention, Supree
Court wide the word
gave a
interpretation to "including" used in Articie l2
Explaining the scope of powers of the Supreme Court under the Constituton
has been held that under the constitutional
schemethis Courthas aspecial ro
the administration of justice and the
powers conferred on it under Artcies
136, 141 and 142 form amplitak
part of basic structure of the
Constituton. canno e
ot the power of this Court under these Articles of the Constitution ca
curtailed by law made by Central or State Legislature. If the contenton
ill have
behalf of contemnors
the

is
accepted, the Courts
all ovet
for d
protection from this Court. No doubt, High Courts have power persist

the inber
contempt of subordinate Courts but that does not affect or abns

1 (1972) 1 SCC 651. for

harn

AIR1991 SC 2176 Supreme Court in this case punished five police

poic
e
officers

handcuffing a Magistrate.

274
 Powers
of Supreme Court & High Courts to
ional Punish for
Contempt of Court
(this
Court under Article 129.
h Res
Chandra Mishra, the Supreme Court has held that
129 its power
is independent of the statutory law of
contempt enacted by
1.e., the Contempt
Cont of Courts Act, 1971.
liament
a Article 129 cannot be either
The
constitutionally vested
abridged, abrogated or cut
down, by any
hecause the object of
vesting such a power in the Court
was to
g of law, the rule of law which is foundation
of a democratic
uphold
Acxordingls
the Court punished Sh. Vinay Chandra Mishra, society.
Senior advocate a
of
of Bar Council of India for
ad Chaurman misbehaving with justice Kishote of
adl High Court. Contemnor in this case
Alahabu
alleged that as Supreme Court and
Jhabad High Court both had cquivalent
jurisdiction for punishing for
etempt, Supreme Court was not entited to take suo
motu
getempt relating to a subordinate Court. The Court held- cognizance of the

Since this Court has power of

judicial superintendence and control over all
te Courts and tribunals functioning in the entire territory
comesponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of
of the country, it hasa
inferior Courts to
ensure to flow of the stream of
justice in the
Courts without any interference
stack from or
any quarter. The subordinate and
inferior Courts do not have
adequate power under he law to protect themselves,
this Court
therefore, it is necessary that
should protect them. Under the
constitutional scheme this
pecial role, in the administration of Court hasa
Articles 32,
and justice
the powers
conferred on it under
136, 141 and 142 form part of basic structure
he
amplitude of the power of this Court under
of the Constitution.
these Articles of
ahot be
curtailed by law made
the Constitution
by Central or State
legislature. If the contention
c d On
behalf of the contemnors is
accepted, the Courts all over India will have
protection from this Court. No doubt
High Courts have power to persist Tor
COntempt
uCTent
of subordinate Courts but that does not
affect or abndge the
power of this Court under Article 129.
In ncome Tax
Appellate Tribunal through President v. VA. Agunval, the
onten
Ihe Law Secretary, Govt. of India wrote two letters to President of
x Appellate Tribunal to report about contradictory orders assed i

Supranote 1.
1999(2) S.C.. 257
275
 High Punish for
Courts to Punis

Constirutional
Powers
of Supreme
Court &
Contenpt of C
is guilty of criminale
Bench.
Respondent
the Tri p
appeal by
a particular
in judicial
function of the Tribunal.. Respond
interference

amounts
to
no Jurisdiction
to issue
Court had
that the Supreme the Inen
contended matter pertaining to tax
of a
of contempt
in respect

Court held that

The Income tax Appellate
Tribunal Appella
Trbunal. The 1s a national Tr
in different parts
or tne county,
Tribunal and i
have Benches its Benches.
all its
and all
affects the entire country
and
Appeals also
functioning and Keterences made by the
the decisions
ultimately
The
to this Court from
mere fact that by this Court taking SuO mofu cognizance of the comt Trbondthe
ontemp,
first respondent would not be able to appeal to any other Court, canmnot
be
the power to punish for contempt of national Tribe nibunal
ground for not exercising
With respect to the issue as to how far the Constitutional power off tte
Supreme Court and High Courts can be regulated or restricted by statutory lau
law
including the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a five Judge Bench of the Suprem
reme
Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India", held that te
power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt, though quite wide, wasy
limited and could not be expanded to include the power to determine whether am
advocate was also guilty of professional misconduct which power has be
conferred on Disciplinary Committee under Advocates Act, 1961. Ovemuling
Vinay Chandra Mishra's case(wherein Supreme Court suspended the licenseo
the contemnor), Court held that punishment for established contempt of Cour
Committed by advocate could include debar him from
an not punishment to
practice by suspending his licence.
n 1. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P & Ors. ", the Supreme Court
considered the nature and extent of power under Article 129 and 2D in the

followingterms
Articles 129 and 215
of the Constitution of India declare the Supreme
ad
cvery High Court to be a Court of record having all the such a
Court
powers OL
including the power to punish
not

c
for contempt of itself. These articles u
any Dew
jurisdiction or status on the Supreme Court and the High co
ney mierely recognise a pre-existing situation that the d the
Supreme COurt

AIR 1998 SC 1895

(2001) 1 SCC S16.
276
 uoreme C
Court
ourt & High o
& High Courts to Punish for Contempt of Court
Supreme
of
Powers
ittiona
of
aurts o ffn
C o u r t s
record and by virtue of being Courts of record have
contempt of themselves. Such inherent power
are

for
Courts
ion to punish
uh not governed or limited by any rules of
jur is summary. It is
contem
or of natural justice The jurisdiction
is cepting the principles
215 1s inalienable. It cannot be taken away or
Articles 129 and
cndure

d by
plate enactment subordinate to the Constitution. The
e b y any legislative
i t l e dd o w n

of Courts Act, 191 are in addition to and not in

sof the Contempt

129 and 215 of the
Constitution. The provisions of the
on of Articles
used for limiting or regulating the
of Courts
Act, 1971 cannot be
Contempt

contemplated by
the said two articles."
of jurisdiction
scise
in contempt cases is concerned
the summary procedure adopted
So far as
devotes an entire provision to the situation of
Courts Act, 1971
of
Contempt Section 15
he face of Supreme Court and High Court.
occurring in
contempt Court in the context of the
specitic relerence to the Supreme
also makes that as
contempt. Section 23 records the fact
procedure for prosecuting criminal the
is concerned,
of procedure of contempt
jurisdiction
fat as the regulation with the
inconsistent
and High Court may
make rules not
Supreme Court that the
Court has held
of this Act. In many cases Supreme
provisions
General tor making
of the Advocate
consent in writing
equurement of obtaining 15 not in
conformity
by any person is
mandatory. Amotion under Section
otuon maintainable.
of that section is not
n the requirements Act. the judgment in Leila
when faced with
Section 14 of the
However, seems to make
a sudden depurture from
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
UVId
v. with Section 15. when the contempt is

track endorsed in dealing

C strict adopt a
summary proceduree
Court, the Court may
committed on the face of the in such a casc,
Sectton 14 ot Contempt o
punishing
the contemnor.
But even a mininal opportunity of hearing and

the Court
to grant
Act requires involves the
Ourts Most essentally,
sucn a cousc hecessanly

ctence
to
the accused. to (c) to be followed. Even whe
Section 140Xa)
in
reflected
three steps accused with the details

the Court 1s roquu

to
us the
Committed in
its face,

P r o c e e d i n e s or
o Proceeding Jor Cmtempd f Court
dhure Applicable
cable ko
631, Biman Basu wKalol Guha
o rdetails see Chapcr
Kerala
2001 4) R.CRCminal)
A I R 2010 SC 3
AIR 2010 SC B6 277
 to Punisha
Court & High Courts
ish for C
Constitutional
Powers of Supreme

to nd, and
respond, and
ontermgt of C
of the charge, grant
him/her an opportunity
int that
then, take
on this very point that
into consideration.It is Justices Pasnec
sternPasayat
evidence
David. The former adopte ed
differed in Leila a
Ganguly had There isis nno need for
contemptuous. There

issuiapproac
that "This conduct is
stating
notice as the contemnors stated in open Court that they stand by what s ng
they
As a result, he convicted the nd senter ey tave
accused
said and did in Court".
imprisonment. Justice Ganguly disagreed e d e
to 3 months simple
unilateral recording in the order that the contemnors stand by what thev ying- "Ma
art is not a substitute for compliance wIth the aforesaid mandatorv

requirement"On reference, the Attormey General, the Solicitor General statutory

President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (all of whom were
and the
their submissions to
the unfortunate incident occurred) made the Court thas
footwear was cast in full view of the Court, there would be "little justificat
tas the
fication in
going through the procedure prescribed in Section 14" and that following s
uch
procedure "would be redundant"
Asa result, a mandatory statutory requirement was "discarded", te
conviction and imposed by Justice Pasayat remained, and all 4 accused
sentence

were to undergo the period of imprisonment

imposed. The judgment in Leia
David's case clearly shows that when the
contempt is committed on the face of
the Court, the procedure
prescribed in Section 14 may be given a go by.
In Rajeshwar Singh v. Subrata Roy Sahara, contempt proceedings were

mtated against the respondents for interfering in Court monitored investigation

and thereby interfering in due administration of justice by the Court. Respondents
eged that contempt proceedings were not maintainable as consent of Advocale
General had not
been obtained as required u/s 15 of Contempt of Courts Ac
Court held that even assuming that there has not been any prop
cpiance of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as contenu
y e learmed senior counsels for the that would not deter or t
respondents,
y the constitutional powers conferred on this Court under Article 129 o f the

s u i o n of India to examine, whether, there has been any attemp

nybody to interfere with an investigation, which is being monitored by
he
h e jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of
Constitution is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act and the po

20150) SCCCri) 329.

278
stiutonal
Powers
sof Supreme Court & High Courts to Punish for Contempt of Court

Aricle 129 0of the Constitution cannot be denuded, restricted or

under A

e Contempt of Courts Act, 191. Holding the petition as perfectly

he
atedby
e Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why
he
le,
gla not initiated against them for interfering with the Court monitored
m r e n g s

estigation.
Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Das", The Karnataka High
n High C
the ambit of constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and
etplained
(urt
Courts in the context of contempt of Court in the
following words:
The power Supreme Court and the High Court, being the
conferred upon he

ts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively, is

Courts of

inherent power and thatbutthederived

jurisdiction vested is a special power not derived
from Articles 129 and 215 of the
m any other statute only
of India. Theretore, the Constitutionaly vested right cannot be
Consitution
be
eiher abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down nor can they
of the Code of Criminal
coatrolled limited by any statute or by any provision
or

of a Superior Court of Record remains

Procedure any Rules. Inherent power
or

of Courts.
unaffected after the codification of the law of contempt
even

the procedure, the inherent

Though Section 15 of the Act of 1971 prescribes
contained in the said
power under Article
215 cannot be curtailed by anything
addition to and not in derogation of
Act. The provisions of the Act of 1971 are in
or regulating the exercise
of the
the Article and it cannot be used for limiting
to puish tor contempt is
unisdiction the Article. The power
contemplated by
described as a necessary incident to every
nherent the Courts of record and
in

inherent to the High Court, 1s given a

LOurt of Justice. This power, though

Article 215 of the Constitution

securing public
1or
Lonstitutional status by
espect and confidence in the judicial process. Court
that the power of
Court and the High
the Supreme
proposition
under Articies 129 and 215 respectively
ne

g h e Courts of
Record as embodied
ordinary legislation including the
trammelled by any
De restricted and elastic,
and thetr nherent power is
O

of Courts Act
of the Contempt Bombay
has further been apProved by
SOns

to any limit
Cered and
not subjected Jairamdas Jaising.
ing v. Bansi
igh Court in Ramesh Jairamdas

2015 1LR (Karnataka) 2435.

2015(5) Mh.LU 255.
 Constitutional Powers of Supreme Court & High Courts to Punish for Contempt of
of Coun

In so far as High Court to punish for contempt of apex court

the power of the
is concerned, In Vitusah Oberoi v. Court of its own motion,
the appellans
nts
challenged an order of Delhi High Court whereby the appellants had been found
guilty of contempt and ordered to remain present in the Court for being heard on
the
quantum of sentence. The alleged contempt was publication of an article
in a
newspaper alleging misuse of official residence by a retired Chief Justice of
India
Allowing the appeal, the apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court
and
held that the order of the High Court is without
jurisdiction. The Court observed that
the contempt
alleged is the contempt of the Supreme Court and
Supreme Court is
competent to punish for contempt of itself. The power to
in a Court of record under
punish for contempt vested
Article 215 does not extend to
of a superior Court. punishing for the contempt