CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, PATNA

Professional ethics project

ON
CONTEMPT OF COURT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH
COURT

SUBMITTED TO: DR. ANSHUMAN SUBMITTED BY:

(Faculty of Professional Ethics) PREETI RANJANA

5th Year, 9th Semester

Section B

Roll no. 776

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is my privilege to record my deep sense to perform

gratitude to those who helped me in completion of this
project.
In making of this project many people helped me
immensely directly or indirectly. I sincerely acknowledge the
help rendered to me by our faculty DR. Anshuman who had
given me an idea and encouragement in making this project.
I also acknowledge the help of library staff and my friends
for being cordial in order to make conducive environment of
the CNLU Hostel.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2
To present detailed study about Supreme court’s and High Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate over
cases of contempt of court under Indian Constitution and other legislation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has opted for Doctrinal Methodology for this project.

SOURCES OF DATA
The researcher has opted for primary sources like statute, case laws and secondary sources of
data like books, newspaper, internet sites etc.

CONTENTS
SR.NO TOPIC PAGE NO.
3
 .
1. INTRODUCTION 5-6
2. CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ITS TYPES 6-8
3. HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURTS 8-10
POWER TO PUNISH FOR THE CONTEMPT
OF COURT

4. PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT 10-13

5. CASES ON CONTEMPT OF COURT 13-18
6. CONCLUSION 19

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of
necessity result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due

4
course of justice. This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Oswald defines contempt to
be constituted by 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 witnesses during
litigation. Halsbury defines contempt as consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct
or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. Black Odgers enunciates that it is contempt
of court to publish 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 obstruct the cause of Justice.

In case of India, under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt
of court as civil contempt or criminal contempt, it is generally felt that the existing law
relating to contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. The
jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the
citizens, namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was,
therefore, considered advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special
committee.

In pursuance of this, a committee was set up in 1961 under the chairmanship of the late H N
Sanyal, the then additional solicitor general. The committee made a comprehensive
examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position
obtaining in our own country and various foreign countries. The recommendations, which the
committee made, took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution
and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interests of
administration of justice.

The recommendations of the committee have been generally accepted by the government
after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the state governments,
union territory administrations, the Supreme Court, the high courts and the judicial
commissioners.

A case of contempt is C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971 1 SCC 626), the respondent
published and circulated a booklet in public purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to
Justice Shah while acting in his judicial capacity. Mr C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed
a petition alleging that the booklet has scandalised the judges who participated in the decision
and brought into contempt the authority of the highest court of the land and thus weakened
the confidence of the people in it. The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the
contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is
a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of
justice or the proper administration of law by the court.

For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which
dealt with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the
Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt.
Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to

5
punish contempts of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under
Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a).

CHAPTER 2
THE CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ITS TYPE
Anything which tends to bring the administration of justice into disrespect or interferes with
the administration of justice constitutes contempt of court. Some of such are as follows:
A. Scandalising the Judge himself
i. Defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge or any caricature of a judge
calculated to lower the dignity of the Court.
ii. Imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge.
iii. Even imputing lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his
official duties.
iv. Insinuation of browbeating the petitioner is ex facie so.1
B. Obstruction of or interference with the due course of justice
i. Any threat to a party to a pending litigation which would force him to withdraw his action
or to abandon it amounts to contempt. 2 The threat may be offered by issuing a circular that
disciplinary action would be taken against a Government servant if he seeks redress in a
court of law in matters arising out of his employment without first exhausting the official
channels of redress.3

ii. It is contempt to prejudice a party to a pending judicial proceeding, e.g., by holding a

parallel inquiry on a matter which is subjudice 4, provided the scope of the inquiry is the
same.5

iii. It is contempt on the part of any party to a prohibitory order issued by the Court to
commit a breach of it after (a) a service of such upon him, or (b)Otherwise acquiring definite
that such an order has been made.6 Non compliance with Supreme Court’s order constitutes
contempt.7

iv.It is contempt on the part of a subordinate Court to intentionally disobey the order of a
superior Court. 8
v. The uttering of words or an action in the face of the Court or in the course of a
proceeding may be contempt, provided it interferes with the course of justice.9

1
In re:Ajay Kumar Pandey, (1996) 6 SCC 510 (para 42) : AIR 1997 SC 260
2
S.K. Gupta v. B.K. Sen, AIR 1961 SC 633 : 1961 (3) SCR 460
3
Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 1962 SC 1172 : 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 838.
4
Supra Note 15
5
Ibid
6
Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, AIR 1962 SC1089 :1962 Supp. (3) SCR 127
7
Superintendent of Central Excise v. Somabhai Rachhodbhai Patel, (2001) 5 SCC 65, 72(para 15) : AIR 2001 SC
1975.
8
Kar, B.K. v. Chief Justice of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1367 (1370) :1962 (1) SCR 319.
9
Re: (1999) 2 SCC.

6
vi. Filing of false affidavits or making a false statement on oath aims at striking blow at
the rule of law and has the tendency to shake public confidence in judicial institutions
and impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice.10
vii. Use of a fabricated and forged order of the Supreme Court for the purpose of
conferring some benefits on a group of persons constitutes contempt of the Apex
Court.11 Deliberately calculated accusations, attributions and aspersions made in the
affidavit, aimed to malign the Court and undermine its authority and deter it from
performing its duty, is an intentional attempt to obstruct the course of justice
amounting to its contempt.12
viii. Imputation that, by a judicial act, if a presiding Judge dismisses a petition, he is
liable to bear personally not only the costs incurred by the litigant but also the
resultant loss to the State with interest payable thereon.13
ix. Threats of public protest, meetings and undertaking satyagrahs against the order of
the Supreme Court prima facie appear to be an attempt to prejudice or interfere with
due course of judicial proceedings.14
x. Violation of orders of the Court constitutes contempt.15

Categories of contempt of court

Contempt of court can be of two types, civil or criminal depending on the nature of the case. 

1. Civil Contempt

Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has been
defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.16

2. Criminal Contempt

Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has
been defined as the publication (whether by words, 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) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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

10
U.P. Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society v. NOIDA, (2004) 9 SCC 670, 673(para 11) : AIR 2003
SC 2723.
11
In re, Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501,506-507 (para 6) : AIR 2001 SC 2018.
12
Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp(2) SCC 130 (para 7).
13
D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216 (para 60) : AIR 1996 SC 2481.
14
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308 (paras 1 and 3) : AIR 1999 SC 33345.
15
Bank of India v. Vijay Transport, (2000) 8 SCC 512, 523-24, 526 (paras 37 and 43) : 2000 Supp (1) jT391.
16
Contempt of Court, Legal service India available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l255-Contempt-
of-Court.html accessed on 20.11.2016.

7
 iii)
Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.17
Criminal Contempt has been further divided into two Categories;
– Direct that is either in the face of the court or within the precincts of the Court (Section 14
of the Act)
– Constructive that is outside the view of the court. (Section 15 of the Act)

CHAPTER 3

HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURTS POWER TO PUNISH FOR THE

CONTEMPT OF COURT

For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which
dealt with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the
Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt.
Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to
punish contempts of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under
Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a). In the first case the Supreme Court or
the High Court can directly charge the contemnor, hear him and order punishment, where as
in the later case, every complaint has to be filed by the Advocate General or with the consent
of the Advocate General.

Power of Supreme Court and High Court under constitution

Power under Article 129

Under Entry 77 of List I of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 246, Parliament is
competent to enact a law relating to the powers of the Supreme Court with regard to
‘contempt of itself’. Such a law may prescribe procedure to be followed and it may also
prescribe the maximum punishment which could be awarded and it may provide for appeal
and for other matters. But the Central Legislature has no legislative competence to abridge or
extinguish the jurisdiction or power conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 129. The
Parliament’s power to legislate in relation to the law of contempt relating to the Supreme
Court is limited, therefore the Contempt of Courts Act does not impinge upon the Supreme
Court’s power with regard to the contempt of subordinate courts under Article 129.

Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a court of record and it further provides that the
Supreme Court shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for
contempt of itself The expression used in Article 129 is not restrictive, instead it is extensive
in nature. If the Framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court shall have
power to punish for contempt of itself only, there was no necessity for inserting the
expression “including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

17
Ibid.

8
Article 129 confers power on the Supreme Court to punish for 948 contempt of itself and in
addition, it confers some additional power relating to contempt as would appear from the
expression “including”. The expression “including” has been interpreted by courts, to extend
and widen the scope of power.

The plain language of the Article clearly indicates that the Supreme Court as a Court of
record has power to punish for contempt of itself and also something else which could fall
within the inherent jurisdiction of a court of record.

In interpreting the Constitution, it is not permissible to adopt a construction which would

render any expression superfluous or redundant.

While construing Article 129, it is not permissible to ignore the significance and impact of
the inclusive power conferred on the Supreme Court.

The conferment of appellate power on the Court by a statute section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act 1971 does not and cannot affect the width and amplitude of inherent powers of
this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution.18

Art.215: High Courts to be courts of record.—Every High Court shalll be a court of record
and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of
itself.  
Art.144:Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.—All authorities,
civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. 
 Art.141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.—The law declared by
the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India
Art. 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery,
etc.— (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make
such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it,
and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of
India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
Art.261: (1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public
acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.

Power under The Contempt of Courts Act,1971

Innocent publication and distribution of matter - not contempt (Sec.3)  
Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding - not contempt (Sec 4)  
Fair criticism of judicial act - not contempt(Sec.5)
Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt- in respect of
any statement made by him in good faith (Sec.6)  

18
Power of Supreme Court to punish for contempt under constitution, Lawkam.org available at
http://www.lawkam.org/contempt/contempt-power-jurisdiction/7452/ accessed on 20.11.2016.

9
Publication of information relating to proceedings inl chambers or in camera - not contempt
except in certain cases (Sec 7 )
 Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt (Sec 9.)- Due regard to Constitutional
Provisions
Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts - Every High Court shall have
and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same
procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and
exercises in respect of contempt of itself :  Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance
of al contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where
such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.(45 of 1860) [Sec.10]
Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside
jurisdiction (Sec.11)  Punishment for contempt of court  (1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
two thousand rupees, or with both. : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the
punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. 
Explanation.-An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. [Sec.12][2]
The Limitation period for actions of contempt is a period of one year from the date on which
the contempt is alleged to have been committed [u/S. 20 of the Act ].

CHAPTER 4

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT

The nature and type of punishment identified in the Contempt of Courts Act does not impinge
upon the inherent powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.31 12. Punishment for
contempt of court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (1) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Actor in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the
punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation. An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in
sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil
contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a
sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six
months as it may think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to
a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in

10
charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company,
as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may
be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such
punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Nothwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been
committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other
officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be
enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director,
manager, secretary or other officer.

Punishment for Civil Contempt of Court vs. Criminal Contempt of Court

Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt
sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to
satisfy the court's order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt
sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the
underlying case is resolved.

Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held
in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held
in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to
criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an
opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does
not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence
(jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either
the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Defences allowed in Contempt Proceeding

Clause (b) of Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 that was introduced recently by
2006 amendment, allows the accused to raise the defense of justification by truth of such
contempt, if the court is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the
said defence is bona fide.
However, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is
satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
Types of contempt of court dealt with by the Attorney General's Office

11
 The Attorney General and Solicitor General (the Law Officers) can be asked to look at some
types of contempt of court:
1. Publication contempt
2. Juror contempt
3. Contempt in civil cases
4. Naming people
5. Breaking a court order

Publication contempt
Sometimes material is published which risks damaging a trial. This could be in a newspaper,
television, radio, website or social media – all are covered by the Contempt of Court Act
1981 (the Act).
Publication can also be something a non-journalist puts out themselves, most often by social
media, which then spreads.
Once somebody has been arrested or civil proceedings have started, the Act provides them
with protection from publications which may prejudice or impede the course of Justice.
An example of prejudicial material might be information about a suspect or defendant’s
previous convictions. There is a danger that if jurors on that case hear about such information
outside of the court process it could affect the way they think about a case, or prejudice it so
much that a trial cannot take place or has to be stopped. The material could be in contempt of
court and the Law Officers can take legal action against those responsible for the publication.

Juror contempt
A juror may commit contempt if he or she disobeys an order of the judge or tells someone
who is not on the jury details of the jury’s thoughts and decisions on the case they are
considering.
Sometimes a judge will deal with contempt by a juror straight away - for example, a juror
who disrupts the trial or is not on time. When a more detailed investigation is needed, a judge
will often ask the Attorney General for advice.

Contempt in civil cases

In civil cases, if one side makes a false statement in support of their case that will be a
contempt of court and the Attorney General may be asked to consider if proceedings for
contempt should be started. Although the parties to the proceedings may ask the Attorney
General to intervene, the Attorney General prefers such referrals to come from the Court,
which will be best placed to provide an objective assessment as to whether there has been a
potential contempt.

12
Naming people
People who claim to be victims of sexual offences have automatic anonymity for life whether
adults or children, unless they themselves choose to lift their anonymity. The identities of
people connected to them are sometimes withheld because it may lead to the victim being
identified.
This is not contempt, as naming complainants in sexual offences is a criminal offence but the
Attorney General still has a role to play as his or her consent to any prosecution is required.
Breaches of anonymity will be investigated by the police in the ordinary way and then passed
to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for consideration. If the CPS decides that there is
sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction the details will then be passed
to the Attorney General for him or her to decide if the public interest requires a prosecution.
If the Attorney General consents then the CPS prosecutes the case in the usual way.

Breaking a court order

Sometimes a judge makes an order which prevents the reporting of a piece of information
during a trial. The media are told about these orders. If these reporting restrictions are
breached then that is a contempt (disobedience of a court order) and the Attorney General
may be asked by the court to consider whether contempt proceedings should be started.
Injunctions are also a form of court order and if the terms of the order are breached then that
may be a contempt. In most cases involving injunctions it will be for the person or
organisation who originally asked for the injunction to decide whether they wish to bring
contempt proceedings.
In a limited number of cases where the person or organisation involved is either unable to
start contempt proceedings or there is a significant public interest in contempt proceedings
being started, the Attorney General, again as Guardian of the Public Interest, may intervene

CHAPTER 5

CASES ON CONTEMPT OF COURT

13
In Re: Arundhati Roy19

Facts
An organisation namely, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition under Article 32 of the
constitution of India in the court. The petitioner was a movement or andolan, whose leaders
and members were concerned about the alleged adverse environmental impact of the
construction of the Sardar Sarovar Reservoir Dam in Gujarat and the far reaching and tragic
consequences of the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from their ancestral
homes that would result from the submerging of vast extents of land, to make the reservoir.
During the pendency of the writ petition this court passed various orders. By one of the
orders the court permitted to increase the height of the dam to 85 metres which was resented
to and protest by the writ petitioners and others including the respondent herein. Respondent
Arundhati Roy, who is not a party to the writ proceedings, published an article entitled “The
Greater Common Good” which was published in the OUTLOOK magazine and in some
portion of a book written by her. Two judges of this court forming the three judge bench felt
that the comments made by her were, prima facie, a hindrance to judicial process and
institution cannot be permitted to be scandalised.

Issues
Whether the article published by Arundhati Roy scandalous and causes contempt of court?

Ratio
The court found Arundhati Roy guilty of the charge of contempt and fined her Rs. 2000 and a
jail term of one day. It said that the article written by her was not bonafide, and hence would
be an hindrance to justice. Later they observed that she deviated from the path of contributing
to literature and art to slandering decisions of the court.

S.P. Khatri v. Madhu Trehan

Facts
A fortnightly magazine called Wah India published an article listing fourteen judges of the
Delhi High Court and evaluated them on parameters of punctuality, knowledge of the law,
integrity, quality of judgments, manners in court, and receptiveness to arguments. The
evaluation was apparently based on a survey that took in the opinions of fifty “senior
lawyers”. The Delhi High Court issued a notice against the magazine’s Editor-in-Chief and
directed the Delhi police to ensure that copies of the allegedly offensive issue were
withdrawn from newsstands and the shops that sold it. Copies of the issue that had not been
circulated were thus seized and confiscated. The Court held that prima facie contempt had
been committed by the respondents because the ranking of the judges amounted to
scandalising the judiciary. The Court also refused the apologies that were tendered by the
accused.

Issues
Whether the magazine is in its rights protected under Article19 (1)(a) of free speech?
19
(2002) 3 SCC : AIR 2002 SC 1375.

14
Whether the article published in the magazine is in contempt of court?

Ratio
1. The court held that the magazine is not within is right and such a publication is misuse
of the powers vested with the press. The court stated that press is the mother of the
nation, but it is acting as a step mother in this case.
2. The court held that such publication is scandalizing the court and is in clear contempt
of the court. The court despite dissent accepted the apology but with a condition that
they must publish an apology in 5 different newspapers in English, failing which will
bring criminal charges.

Subramaniyam Swami v. Arun Shorie

Facts
Justice Kuldip Singh, then a judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed the chairman of a
commission of inquiry to probe into allegations of corruption against Ramakrishna Hegde,
the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. When the commission released its report, it refuted
all the allegations. The Indian Express published an article titled “If Shame Had Survived”,
criticising the report for being “deferential” to the Chief Minister and accusing Justice Singh
of “inventing theories and probabilities” to argue against the allegations. The article also
highlighted how Justice Singh had failed to include the evidence of the key witness in the
case and said that “If there had been any sense of honour or shame, a Judge would never have
done any of this.” Subramanian Swamy filed a contempt petition against Arun Shourie, who
was the editor of the newspaper, contending that the editorial was a scandalous statement in
respect of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.

Issues
Whether the article published in Indian Express defamatory and hence in contempt of court?

Ratio
The court held that the article is not defamatory because it stated, what they though in
bonafide was true. Truth is a defence against defamation and hence they are not in contempt
of court. Also, Justice Kuldeep was not acting in judicial capacity and the office he was
holding cannot be called a court, hence, it was not contempt of court.

Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association

Facts
In the murder trial of Shankar Guha Niyogi, the accused were found guilty and sentenced to
prison for life, and one was awarded death sentence. On appeal, the High Court reversed the
trial court judgement and acquitted the accused.

A newspaper called Hitavada published a report where Rajendra Sail called the decision of
the high court as rubbish. It was reportedly said in a rally organised to give their respects to
the deceased Shankar Guha Niyogi.

15
The HC convicted the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Chief Sub-Editor and Desk In-charge of
the newspaper at Bhilai besides Burea Chief of 'Hitavada' at Bhilai and sentenced them to 6
months prison.

The appeal went to Supreme Court.

Issues
Whether criticizing the judgement of the court protected under free speech, or amounts to
contempt of court?

Ratio
The Supreme Court observed that for rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible press
and an independent judiciary are both indispensable and both have to be, therefore, protected.
The aim and duty of both is to bring out the truth. And it is well known that the truth is often
found in shades of grey. Therefore the role of both can not be but emphasized enough,
especially in a ‘new India’, where the public is becoming more aware and sensitive to its
surroundings than ever before. The only way of functioning orderly is to maintain the delicate
balance between the two. The country cannot function without two of the pillars its people
trust the most. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt against them, but modified and
reduced the sentence. The newspaper was allowed to apologise and they were acquitted,
while Rajendra Sail’s sentence was reduced to one week.

In Re: S. K. Sundaram

Facts
One advocate S. K.Sundaram sent a telegram to the Chief Justice of India stating the he must
resign from his post and must immediately return Rs. 3 Crore to the ex-chequer, as he
strongly beliefs that the Chief Justice of India has lied about his age. He beliefs that the CJI
must be retired by now but is still holding an office due to his lie.

He then went ahead and filed a criminal complaint on the above grounds.

Issues
Whether sending a telegram to the CJI and filing a criminal complaint on strong belief of
fraud on the part of CJI, a ground for criminal contempt of court?

Ratio
The court stated that the letter sent to the CJI was filled with threat and commands and such a
letter would obviously undermine the image and majesty of the courts in India. Also sending
such a letter and filing the complaint, the contemnor is coming in the way of administration
of justice. Thus he is found guilty of criminal contempt of court and was sentenced to six
months in prison, but that was held suspended and if the contemnor commits or attempts to
commit, for 5 years, any other criminal contempt, the suspension will stand null and he will
have to serve six months in prison.

16
R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court20

In the instant case, both the special Public Prosecutor and the defense lawyer were found to
be involved in winning over or influencing an extremely important witness. They were
caught through live conversation in Sting operation by the media. The evidence was accepted
by the Court and the contemnor R.K. Anand was prohibited by way of punishment, from
appearing in Delhi High Court and all the courts subordinate to it, for a period of four months
from the date of judgment. The other advocate, I.U. Khan, was supposed to know about the
ongoing game plan that was afoot for subversion of the Trial. His omission to inform about
the same to the court, as per High Court was likely to have a very serious impact on the trial
and was deemed to be a case of professional misconduct.

The appeal of I.U Khan was admitted and the High Court order was set aside by the Supreme
Court. However, it was left to the High Court to consider as to whether or not to continue the
honour of Senior Advocate conferred on him in light of the findings recorded in this
judgment. The appeal of R.K. Anand was dismissed, and he was given 8 weeks time to file
his show-cause. In addition to this the Supreme Court also directed that those of the High
Courts, which have so far not framed any rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act,
should frame appropriate rules without any further delay.

Delhi Judicial Service Association, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others21

Facts One Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gujarat was arrested, assaulted and handcuffed by
police officers on alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of prohibition law.
Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against the police officers under Article 129 of
the Constitution of India.

On contempt petition and writ petition notice was issued to several officers of Court. A
Commission was established to enquire as to exact nature of happenings. Respondent
contended findings recorded by Commission cannot be taken into account being hit by
Article 20 (3). To avail protection of Article 20 (3) three conditions need to be fulfilled -
firstly person accused must be guilty of offence secondly element of compulsion to be
witness and thirdly it must be against himself - mere issue of notice of pendency of contempt
proceedings does not mean condemners being accused of any offence - held, Article 20 (3)
not attracted. Also Supreme Court being the Apex Court has the power to punish for its own
contempt or subordinate Courts or lower judiciary and Tribunals.

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi& Others 22

Certain political parties had passed a resolution to resort to total cessation of work and
closure of shops. The Petitioner challenged the call in Writ Petition filed before the High
Court and prayed that the call given by the political parties for organizing bandh in the State
of Tamil Nadu may be declared as violative of Articles 19 and 21. The High Court restrained
the Respondent political parties from proceeding with the call for Bandh. Respondents no. 1
20
R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
21
(1991) SCR (3) 936: AIR 1991 SCC 2176
22
All India Anna DravidaMunnetraKazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi and Others AIR 2009 SC 1314

17
and 3 announced that no public transport will be affected and that measures shall be taken so
that there is no loss to the shops. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 gave detailed instructions to all the
officers to ensure that the public is not put to harassment, the government and private
properties are not damaged, supplies of essential services like water, electricity, telecom,
railways etc. are not disrupted, supply of milk etc. is maintained and business and other
commercial establishments are provided protection However, the bandh was carried out.
Subsequently, the petitioner prayed to the court that the respondents be punished for
contempt of court as they have continued with the bandh obstructing public transport and
ensuring that no business or commercial activity was done. It was held that Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 cannot be held guilty of disobeying or violating the Court's order and punished for
committing contempt of court as Petitioners have not produced any evidence to prima facie
establish that the transport services did not at all operate in the State and that too on account
of any action or omission on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, contempt charges
were dismissed against all the Respondents in absence of any admissible evidence against
them.

Anup Bhushan Vohra v. Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta23

Appellants were accused of creating impediments in functioning of the judiciary and of

remaining silent spectators. The question before the Court was whether the Appellants were
guilty of criminal contempt under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Calcutta
High Court held the Applicants liable for criminal contempt. The Supreme Court set aside the
order stating that conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of probabilities. Charge against the
criminal contempt had not been made out in the manner known to law. Hence, conviction
was set aside.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court is vested with the right to punish those guilty of contempt of Court under
Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The power to punish
contemners is also vested with the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution and the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also governs the punishments given by the High Court. This
act in no way controls the jurisdiction of the Apex Court. The Court in In Re: Vinay Mishra
misconstrued Article 129 read with 142 and robbed the Bar to of all powers to try and punish
those for professional misconduct. It even assumed jurisdiction when Section 38 of the

23
AnupBhushanVohra v. Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (2011) 13 SCC 393

18
Advocates Act, 1961 explicitly provides only appellate jurisdiction to the Apex Court. The
Court punished Shri Mishra by suspending him thus the petition arose in the 1998
case, Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India.
The Court overruled the Mishra case and recognized the Bar Council's power to try and
punish all those guilty of professional misconduct. It is well settled that contempt proceedings
are brought about to protect the majesty of law and uphold the judiciary's position, the central
pillar in Indian democracy, among the public and give them reason to keep their faith in the
administration of justice. Contempt proceedings are not brought about to restore the pride of
the Judge in who's Court or against whose order their was contempt.
In the Mishra case the Court instead of protecting the image of the Judiciary, the upholder of
the law, knowingly or un-knowingly, tried to restore the pride of the Judge by suspending the
advocate Mishra who might have been influenced by his high position in the Bar, and felt that
appropriate punishment might not be meted out to him.
Association case the court took a very objective view and taking the help of law and
construing it in the right way came to the conclusion that the power to punish for any
professional misconduct rests with the Bar, whereas to punish for contempt only it has
jurisdiction for itself and subordinate courts. No statute can take contempt jurisdiction away
from the Supreme as well as the High Court.

REFERENCE

REFERENCES BOOKS

• D. Basu, Constitution Law Of India, (3 rd edn., Kamal Law House, Kolkata, 2012)

• M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6 th edn., LexisNexis ButterworthsWadhwa Nagpur, 2010)

19
• Prof. C. L. Anand, Constitutional Law History and History of Government of India, (8 th edn.,
Universal Law Publishing Co., 2008)

• Prof. S. R. Bhansali, The Constitution of India, (2 nd edn., Universal Law Publishing Co., 2014)

• T. K. Tope., Constitutional Law Of India, (3 rd edn., Eastern Book Co., 2010)

WEBSITES

• www.manupatrafast.com

• www.scconline.com

• www.caselaw.delhi.nic.in

• www.jurisonline.nic.in

• www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

• www.westlaw.com

• www.lexis-nexis.com

20