Contempt of Court in India: An Overview

By: Diya Sareen

The concept of contempt of court is several centuries old. In England, it is a common law principle
that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by him, and later by a panel of
judges who acted in his name. Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king
himself. Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their
directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India. The contempt of court was introduced in
British India by setting up of the Court of Record through a charter of 1687 issued by the East India
company for the establishment of Mayor's Court at Madras. Thereafter charter of 1726 occupied an
important place in the development of the administration of justice in India.

Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws. When the
Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech
and expression. Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the
power to punish contempt of itself. Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
1
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

As per the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, contempt refers to the offence of showing disrespect to the
dignity or authority of a court. The Act divides contempt into two i.e.: 2

1. Civil Contempt: Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states civil contempt
as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes
of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the court.

1
Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-what-is-contempt-of-court/article
2
Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/contempt-of-court-1
 2. Criminal Contempt: Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines criminal
contempt as any act which may result in:

 Scandalizing the court by lowering its authority.

 Interference in the due course of a judicial proceeding.

 An obstruction in the administration of justice.

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was amended in 2006 to include the defense of
truth under Section 13 of the original legislation. Implying that the court must permit justification
by truth as a valid defense if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest.

Further, innocent publication and distribution of some matter, fair and reasonable criticism of
judicial acts and comment on the administrative side of the judiciary does not amount to
contempt of court.

Procedure to be followed in case of contempt of court: 3

The procedure for trying cases of contempt of court is provided in the Contempt of Courts Act
1971. The proceedings can be initiated by courts suo motu, i.e. by themselves, and require a
notice in writing to be sent to person alleged to have committed contempt to appear before the
court, when the contemptuous act or words occur in the presence of the court.

Courts are required to conduct these hearings as soon as possible, and preferably on the same day
when it concerns acts of contempt committed in their presence. Persons accused of contempt
have the right to be heard in their defense and courts can hear evidence regarding the case as
well. Detention in custody is permissible during a trial for contempt.

3
Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court_in_India
 When contemptuous acts or words are alleged to have occurred outside a courtroom, proceedings
for contempt in the High Courts or Supreme Courts can only be carried out if with the permission
of the relevant law officer.

In the case of High Courts, the consent of the State's Advocate General is required, and in the
case of the Supreme Court, the consent of either the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor
General of India is required. Proceedings for contempt in the Supreme Court are also subject to
an additional set of regulations, known as the 'Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of
Supreme Court'.

Punishment for Contempt of Court: 4

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the punishment for Contempt of Court. It
states that:

 The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to punish for contempt of court, either with
simple imprisonment for a term up to six months or with fine up to Rs. 2,000 or with both.

 In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that it has the power to punish for contempt not only of
itself but also of high courts, subordinate courts and tribunals functioning in the entire country.

 On the other hand, High Courts have been given special powers to punish contempt of
subordinate courts, as per Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.

4
Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-of-court-2/#Punishment_for_Contempt_of_Court
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 also specifically allows courts to forgo the punishment if an
apology is made to the court, and may use their discretion to determine whether the apology has
been sufficient.

Limitations for the action on Contempt of Court:

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 Case Judgments :5

 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.

 Arundhati Roy Case:

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.

 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V. State Of Gujarat & Ors:

5
Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-of-court-2/#Punishment_for_Contempt_of_Court
 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 have also not given.

 Supreme Court Bar Association V. Union Of India & Anr:

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.

 Prashant Bhushan Case:

Advocate Prashant Bhushan was found guilty of criminal contempt of court on August 14
’2020 by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court over two tweets posted last June that
were critical of the judiciary.

The Bench justified its decision to view Bhushan's tweets as scandalizing the Court and
lowering its authority by taking recourse a plethora of Supreme Court judgments on
contempt law.

Conclusion:

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. 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.
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
needs to 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.