CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND RULES

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION –........................................................................................................................2

DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –..............................................................................2

ORIGIN OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –.......................................................................................3

HISTORY OF LAW OF CONTEMPT IN INDIA –.......................................................................4

FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –....................................................................6

KINDS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA –.......................................................................6

 Civil Contempt –...................................................................................................................6

 Criminal Contempt –............................................................................................................8

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT –.........................................................................9

CURES AGAINST A REQUEST FOR PUNISHMENT –..........................................................10

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS –..................................................................................................10

CONTEMPT COMMITTED EXTERNAL THE COURT –........................................................11

MILESTONE CONTEMPT JUDGMENTS –..............................................................................11

RENOWNED INSTANCES OF HATRED –...............................................................................12

ANALYSIS OF THE FORCE OF DISDAIN OF COURT –........................................................13

CONCLUSION –...........................................................................................................................14
INTRODUCTION –

Guard dog of the Indian constitution, depended with the powerful errand of apportioning equity
in the country (1), Judiciary of India structures one of the three primary mainstays of the
association government (1). Legal executive guarantees equity and fairness to each person and
establishments, thusly, the creators of the constitution maintained the sacredness and esteem of
the worshipped foundation by putting arrangements under articles 129 and 215 of the
constitution (1), which empowers the courts to reprimand people in the event that they endeavor
to disparage or deprecate their position (1). There have been a few regulations passed since as
soon as 1926 to oversee the law of scorn in the country (1), the ongoing one being The Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 which stood revised rearward in 2006 (1).

DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –

"The term 'Contempt of Court' is a conventional term expressive of direct corresponding to

specific procedures in an official courtroom which will in general sabotage that framework or to
hinder residents from profiting themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes (1)." This
definition is given by Lord Diplock when he was giving the judgment on account of Attorney-
General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1).

This term Contempt of Court can be effectively perceived as when we are rude or defiance
towards the official courtroom which implies that we willfully neglect to submit to the court
request or disregard the lawful specialists (1). Then, at that point, the adjudicator has the
privilege to force endorses like fines or can send the contemnor to imprison for a specific
timeframe assuming that he is viewed as a legitimate fault for Contempt of Court (1).

This term can likewise be grasped concerning the opportunity of cutoff points of the legal action
(1). As we realize that all appointed authorities in courts can give legal procedures which have a
specific breaking point in which it has the opportunity to make any official procedure and
anything which shortens or stops it in making any legal procedure which is of need can add up to
hatred of court (1).
Halsbury, Oswald, and Black Odgers have likewise given the meaning of Contempt of Court and
what's more (1), they have discussed its abuse and its off-base understanding and furthermore its
wide outline (1). In India, the idea of Contempt of Court is characterized in Section 2(a) of the
Contempt of Courts Act (1), 1971 which has comprehensively portrayed it as common scorn or
criminal disdain (1). There are two Articles in the Constitution of India which discuss the
Contempt of Court and these are Article 129 and Article 142(2) (1).

Article 129 says that the Supreme Court will be the 'Court of Record' and it has every one of the
abilities of such courts including the ability to rebuff for disdain of itself (1). The 'Court of
Record' signifies a Court having its demonstrations and procedures enlisted for never-ending
memory or that memory which has no closure and as proof or evidence (1). The reality of these
records can't be addressed and furthermore these records are treated as a more significant
position (1). Also, anything expressed against the reality of these records involved Contempt of
Court (1).

Article 142(2) additionally discusses Contempt of Court. This Article says that when any
regulation is made by the Parliament on the arrangements referenced in condition 1 of this
Article (1), the Supreme Court has all the ability to make a request for getting any individual's
participation (1), creation of any archives or has the ability to give discipline to anybody for its
scorn (1).

This likewise doesn't imply that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right of
individual freedom assuming it has the ability to rebuff for Contempt of Court (1). We realize
that it is the watchman of the multitude of freedoms that we get from the Indian Constitution so it
needs to protect these privileges and can't abuse these privileges itself (1).

ORIGIN OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –

The general set of laws that we see today is the culmination of the long excursion which has
begun from the heavenly decide that was in declaration to the normal regulation and all the
further to the positive regulation that we see today (1). Scorn of Court is a matter which respects
that equity ought to be directed reasonably and it likewise rebuffs any individual who means to
hurt the nobility or authority of the legal councils (1). This regulation has its starting point from
the bygone eras when the imperial powers of the ruler were moved to the court and right now the
ruler was accepted to be selected by God and everybody was responsible to him (1). This force
of responsibility obviously portrays a similar responsibility the Supreme Court has these days
under Article 129 and 142 of the Indian constitution against its scorn (1). In the English middle
age ages, the Judiciary was a significant apparatus of the Monarch (1). Around then these
adjudicators and lawmaking bodies were delegates of the heavenly rule government and these
appointed authorities and assemblies assumed a significant part in legitimizing the elements of
these rulers (1). The lord was the predominant head of equity and this power he has given to the
legal framework and in the event that anybody or the ruler himself lack of respect or question the
courts it turned into a test to the prevalence of the ruler and as well with regards to his insight
(1). Thus, this should be visible as albeit the wellspring of the law has changed in the general
public the undeniability quality that a lord delighted in was maintained by the government (1).
There is an instance of disdain against J. Almon in the year 1765 (1); an assertion was made by
the Irish adjudicator Sir Eardley Wilmot with respect to this scorn assaults on the adjudicators
(1). For this situation, Almon has distributed a flyer defaming the choice of the seat of rulers and
the judgment given by the appointed authority had led to many inquiries of a few parts of the
legal executive which had not been addressed at this point (1). This matter gives an extraordinary
push in the foundation of the scorn of court (1). This judgment additionally perceived that the
unbiased attitude is likewise one of the highlights of the legal executive in settling on the choice
which makes this foundation not the same as its friend establishments (1).

HISTORY OF LAW OF CONTEMPT IN INDIA –

Sanyal Committee report manages the authentic part of the Law of Contempt in India (1). This
board has been liable for beginning the revision cycle in this regulation (1). The law of scorn like
numerous different regulations has been brought from the English regulations and rules however
this regulation has not been totally taken from the English regulations it has different beginnings
as well (1). How has the native improvement of hatred regulation occurred (1)? It very well may
be perceived by the deep-rooted framework which our nation was safeguarding court or
gatherings (sabhas) previously (1). We are familiar the thinker Kautilya, in his book Arthashastra
has expounded on the administration around then (1). He has composed that "Any individual
who uncovered the ruler or put-downs his chamber or make any sort of terrible endeavor on the
lords then the tongue of that individual ought to be cut off (1)." Adding to this assertion, he
likewise said that "When an adjudicator compromises, menace or make quietness to any of the
disputants in the court then he ought to be rebuffed (1)."

Until the year 1952, there were no legal arrangements for the disdain of court in India however
after the authorization of Contempt of Court Act, 1952 legal arrangements for hatred of court in
India has laid out (1). This Act stretches out to the entire of India aside from Jammu and
Kashmir (1). This Act enables the High Court to rebuff disdain of the subordinate court (1). This
Act has canceled the current regulation from the Contempt of Court Act, 1926 that was winning
in the territory of Rajasthan and the province of Saurashtra (1). Albeit this Act was reached out
to the entire of Bangladesh (1). It very well may be amazing knowing that albeit these Acts have
been presented before then likewise these Acts don't give the meaning of the term 'Scorn' and
furthermore there was still a great deal of vagueness present around the law of disdain (1). This
regulation must be managed considering two central rights given by our Indian Constitution and
these privileges are (1)

1. the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation and

2. right to individual freedom.

There was a bill acquainted in the Lok Sabha with roll out any improvements or to make the
current regulation connecting with hatred more solid (1). This regulation was presented by Shri
B das Gupta on first of April 1960 (1). The public authority in the wake of analyzing the bill
perceive the requirement for change in the current Act (1). In this way, they made a unique board
to investigate the matter or review the current Act (1). This panel was set up in 1961, under the
chairmanship of H.N. Sanyal which gives its report on 28th February, 1963 (1). The report of
this board appeared as Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (1). The technique and use of sanctioning
something done before by the Contempt of Court Act of 1926 and 1952 was given a few changes
through the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (1). This Act isolates the 'Disdain of Court' into
criminal and common hatred with their definition individually (1). This thing was not referenced
in the prior existing courts. Presently, let us in on something about the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 (1).
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT –

Contempt of Court likewise has specific fundamentals and these are as per the following (1):

 Defiance to a court procedure, its requests, judgment, order, and so forth ought to be done
'stubbornly' in the event of Civil Contempt (1).
 In Criminal Contempt 'distribution' is truly significant and this distribution can be either
spoken or composed, or by words, or by signs, or by apparent portrayal (1).
 The court ought to make a 'legitimate request' and this request ought to be in 'information on'
the respondent (1).
 The activity of contemnor ought to be intentional and furthermore it ought to be obviously
dismissal of the court's structure (1).

These basics ought to be satisfied while making somebody blamed for Contempt of Court (1).

KINDS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA –

Contingent upon the idea of the case in India, Contempt of Court is of two kinds (1):

 Civil Contempt –
Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states Civil Contempt as willful insubordination
to the request, order, course, any judgment or writ of the Court by any individual or tenaciously
break of endeavors by an individual susceptible to a Court (1). Since Civil Contempt denies a
party of the advantage for which the request was made so these are the offenses fundamental of
private nature (1). As such, an individual who is qualified for get the advantage of the court
request, this wrong is by and large finished to this individual (1).

There is a case on the headstrong contempt of the court request which an individual ought to be
aware (1).

Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup1, This is the situation of non-delivering of
help, albeit the court has requested to deliver help (1). Order executed by the court to convey
steadfast property but since of specific block, the respondent neglected to do as such (1). Thus,

1
AIR 2008 Gau 62, 2007 (4) GLT 625
he was expected to take responsibility for comprising defiance to the sets of the skillful Civil
Court (1).

Another case is on the break of an endeavor which prompts Contempt of Court (1).

U.P. Resi. Emp. Center., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority2 –
For this situation, the Supreme Court has guided the Noida Authorities to confirm and state on
the oath subtleties given by people for designation of plots (1). In compatibility to a similar
bearing by the Supreme Court an individual Mr. S recorded a bogus testimony to misdirect the
court (1). The Registry coordinated a show-make notice against him say that why a
demonstration of hatred ought not be taken against him for misdirecting the Supreme Court (1).

Guards to Civil Contempt –

An individual who is blamed for Civil Contempt of case can take the accompanying guards (1):

1. Absence of Knowledge of the request – An individual cannot be expected to take

responsibility for Contempt of Court in the event that he doesn't have the foggiest idea about
the request given by the court or he professes to know nothing about the request (1). There is
an obligation restricting on the fruitful party by the courts that the request that has passed
ought to be served to the Individual by the post or by and by or through the guaranteed
duplicate (1). It tends to be effectively argued by the contemner that the ensured duplicate of
the request was not officially served to him (1).
2. The defiance or the break done shouldn't be – If somebody is arguing under this protection
then he can say that the demonstration done by him was not done unshakably (1), it was only
a simple mishap or he/she can say that it is unchangeable as far as they might be concerned
(1). In any case, this argue must find success in the event that it viewed as sensible in any
case you argue can be disposed of (1).
3. The request that has ignored ought to be unclear or equivocal – If the request passed by the
court is obscure or questionable or this request isn't explicit or complete in itself then an
individual can get the protection of disdain assuming he expresses something against that
request (1). In R.N. Ramaul v. Province of Himachal Pradesh3, this safeguard has been taken
by the respondent (1). For this situation, the Supreme Court has guided the organization of
2
AIR 2003 SC 2723, 96 (2003) CLT 585 SC, 2003 CriLJ 3533, 2003 (4) SCALE 89, (2004) 9 SCC 670
3
AIR 1991 SC 1171, 1991 CriLJ 1415, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 198
 the respondent to reestablish the advancement of the candidate from a specific date in the
help (1). In any case, the respondent has not delivered the money related benefit for the given
time frame and a grumbling was recorded against him for Contempt of Court (1). He argues
for the protection on the given proof that it has not referenced by the court to pay the money
related benefit. At last, he gets the guard. (1)
4. Orders include more than one sensible translation – If the scorn of any request announced by
the court and the request is by all accounts given more than one sensible and sane
understanding and the respondent takes on one of those translations and works as per that
then he won't be obligated for Contempt of Court (1).
5. Order of the request is unimaginable – If consistence of the request is unthinkable or it
should not be possible effectively then it would be taken as a safeguard on account of
Contempt of Court (1). Nonetheless, one ought to separate the instance of inconceivability
with the instance of simple hardships (1). Since this safeguard can be given exclusively on
account of the difficulty of doing a request (1).

 Criminal Contempt –
As per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt is Defined as

i. the distribution of any matter by words, spoken or composed, or by motion, or by signs, or by

apparent portrayal (1) or
ii. doing of any demonstration which incorporates (1):

a) Scandalize or will in general embarrass, or brings or tends down to bring down the power of
any court (1), or

b) Biasness, meddles or will in general slowdown the proper method of a Judicial procedures (1),
or

c) discourages or will in general impede, meddle or will generally obstruct the organization of
equity in any way (1).

Case on Scandalizing the Court:

Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh4, For this situation a backer position slanderous and shocking
assault on the adjudicator of the High Court (1). An application was documented a political
decision candidate in the High Court (1), who was a supporter. He needed to look to remain for
additional contentions in a political decision appeal and furthermore the exchange of political
race petitions (1). These things cause an assault on the legal action of the High Court and tended
to outrage the Court (1). It was held for this situation that it was an endeavor to scare the
appointed authority of the High Court and cause a connection point in the lead of a fair
preliminary (1).

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT –

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 arrangements with the discipline for Contempt of
Court (1). High Court and the Supreme Court have been provided the ability to rebuff somebody
for the Contempt of Court (1). Section 12(1) of this Act expresses that an individual who claimed
with the Contempt of Court can be rebuffed with basic detainment and this detainment can
stretch out to a half year (1), or with fine which might reach out to 2,000 rupees or can be of both
kind discipline (1). In any case, a charged might be released or the discipline that was granted to
him perhaps dispatched depending on the prerequisite that on the off chance that he makes an
expression of remorse and this conciliatory sentiment ought to fulfill the court (1), no one but he
can be excluded from the discipline of Contempt of Court (1). Clarification of this sentence is
that on the off chance that the blamed made an expression of remorse in the genuine (1), this
conciliatory sentiment will not be dismissed on the ground that it is restrictive or qualified (1).

The court cannot force a sentence for Contempt of Court in overabundance of what is
recommended under the given part of this Act either in regard of itself or of a court subordinate
to it (1).

CURES AGAINST A REQUEST FOR PUNISHMENT –

Section 13 has been included the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 after correction in 2006 (1). The
new Act might be known as The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 (1). This Section

4
Appeal (civil) 5332 of 1993
tells that scorn of court can't be rebuffed in specific situations or certain cases (1). Condition (a)
of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that no Court under this
Act will be rebuffed for Contempt of Court except if it is fulfilled that the Contempt is of such a
nature that it considerably meddles or will generally significantly obstruct the proper way of
Justice (1).

Provision (b) of Section 13 of this Act expresses that the court might give the protection on the
avocation of truth assuming it finds that the demonstration done in the public interest and the
solicitation for conjuring that guard is real (1).

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS –

Two Sections of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 arrangements with the methodology of
Contempt continuing (1). One discussion about the procedure notwithstanding the court of
records and different discussions about the procedures other than the court of records (1). Section
14 of the Contempt of Court manages the methodology of disdain continuing notwithstanding
the court of record while Section 15 of this Act manages the strategy of the scorn continuing
external the court of records. (1)

These courts of record have the ability to intrinsically rebuff for its scorn. In this manner, these
courts of record can manage the issue of content by making their own strategy (1). While
practicing the disdain locale by the courts of record the main case to be noticed is that the
technique embraced should be fair and sensible in which the claimed contemnor ought to be
offered full chance to protect himself (1). In the event that the particular charge against the
individual who is rebuffed for the disdain is unmistakably expressed and he is offered a sensible
chance to reply and to protect himself against the charge then just he will be obligated for hatred
of court and the court continuing goes against him (1). Where the individual accused of disdain
under this part applies whether orally or recorded as a hard copy to have the charge against him
(1), attempted by some appointed authority other than the appointed authority or judges in whose
presence or hearing the scorn is claimed to have been committed and the court is of the
assessment that it is essential in light of a legitimate concern for equity that the application ought
to be permitted (1), it will make the matter be moved under the watchful eye of such appointed
authority as the Chief Justice might think fit and legitimate considering the present situation of
the case or put before the Chief Justice with the assertion of realities of the case (1).

CONTEMPT COMMITTED EXTERNAL THE COURT –

Criminal Contempt instead of Civil Contempt perpetrated external the Court (1). Section 15(1) of
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 arrangements with the notification of Criminal Contempt by
Court of Record like the Supreme Court and the High Court (1). Following habits can be taken
by the Supreme Court and the High Court for awareness of the Criminal Contempt (1):

1. On the movement of court of records (1).

2. On the movement of the Advocate General of the Supreme Court and the High Court (1).
3. In the event that any individual returns the movement with the assent of the Advocate
General recorded as a hard copy (1).
4. On the off chance that the law official who is connected with the High Court for the Union
Territory of Delhi as the Central Government tell continues the movement (1). Then, at that
point, it tends to be considered as disdain committed external the court (1).

Section 15(2) of this Act expresses that in the criminal scorn of the subordinate court (1), the
high court might make specific moves in the way given in this Act (1).

MILESTONE CONTEMPT JUDGMENTS –

High Court Bar Association versus Union of India and Anr5 –

For this situation, the Judge held that procedural perspective for Contempt of Court might in any
case be recommended by the Parliament so it very well may be relevant in the Supreme Court
and the High Court (1). This implies that Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971
which recommended a greatest fine of Rs. 5000 and detainment for a term of a half year will be
material for this situation (1).

Zahira Habibullah Sheik and Anr versus State of Gujarat and Ors6 –

5
1995 IAD Delhi 1238, AIR 1995 Delhi 323, II (1995) BC 42, 1998 92 CompCas 849 Delhi
6
Appeal (curl.) 446-449 of 2004
It was held for this situation that the discipline that is given for disdain in the Contempt of Court
Act (1), 1971 will simply be relevant to the High Court however for Supreme Court (1), it goes
about as an aide. The judgment that was given was not joined by judiciousness (1); this was
troubling in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has been provided extraordinary abilities
with that the drafters of the Indian Constitution has likewise not given (1).

Sudhakar Prasad versus Govt. of A.P. furthermore, Ors.7 –

This case is likewise like the Supreme Court Bar Association Case (1). Once more for this
situation additionally the Supreme Court announced that the powers to rebuff for disdain are
innate in nature and the arrangement of the Constitution just perceived the said prior
circumstance (1).

The arrangement of the Contempt of Court can't be utilized to restrict the activity of ward given
in Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution (1).

RENOWNED INSTANCES OF HATRED –

P.N. Duda versus V. P. Shiv Shankar and Others8 –

For this situation, the Supreme Court saw that the adjudicators can't utilize the hatred ward for
maintaining their own respect (1). Our nation is the free commercial center of thoughts and
nobody could be confined to reprimand the legal framework except if this analysis hampers the
'organization of equity' (1).

R. Rajagopal versus State of TN –

This case is otherwise called the Auto Shankar case (1); for this situation, Justice Jeevan Reddy
summoned the exceptionally well-known teaching of John Sullivan (1). This tenet expresses that
public should be available to severe remarks and allegations insofar as made with Bonafide
industriousness (1), regardless of whether it is false (1).

In Re: Arundhati Roy9 –

7
Appeal (civil) 5089 1998, Appeal (civil) 5090 1998
8
1988 AIR 1208, 1988 SCR (3) 547
9
Contempt Petition (crl.) 10 of 2001
For this situation, the Supreme Court saw that the fair analysis on the lead of a Judge or the
establishment of Judiciary and its capability may not add up to disdain assuming it is made
sincerely and in the public interest (1).

Aberrant Tax specialists' Association v. R.K. Jain10 –

For this situation, the Supreme court saw that the safeguard of truth can be allowed to the
individual blamed for hatred assuming the two circumstances are fulfilled. These are: (I)
assuming it is in light of a legitimate concern for public and (ii) the solicitation for summoning
the said safeguard is bonafide (1). These are given in Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 (1).

ANALYSIS OF THE FORCE OF DISDAIN OF COURT –

The watchfulness that an appointed authority has in deciding the scorn and its discipline has been
a begging to be proven wrong issue according to certain researchers on the grounds that the
disdain power has given an excess of power to the Judges (1). A teacher from Virginia
University has about this hatred power that the job of casualty, judge, and investigator are
perilously blended (1). A significant part of the analysis circumvents the fair treatment or
uncontrollability in the discipline for scorn of court (1). Pundits have contended that the
adjudicator in the Criminal hatred might be excessively cruel while giving the Judgment (1). For
instance, in 1994, the Virginia Court has fined Mine Workers of America $52 million in
association in brutality that happened in 1989 (1). Additionally, in some cases the individual who
wouldn't give the data to the court has been to prison for one year or for a long time under the
charge of scorn (1). There are a few provisos in this specific circumstance and it ought to be
satisfied (1).

Aside from analysis there are likewise a few beneficial things about scorn (1). Scorn of Court
Act, 1971 is perhaps of the most impressive resolution in the country (1). This resolution enables
the Constitutional Court to limit a singular's essential freedoms to individual freedom (that he got
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) for 'outraging the court' or unshakably resisting the
court's structure, judgment, declaration, and course, and so on (1).

10
Contempt Petition (crl.) NO.9 OF 2009
CONCLUSION –

The current job connecting with ex facie hatred of lower courts is unacceptable and deluding in
India (1). Apparently obviously, the troubles in such manner are the after result of cross-over of
disdain powers under the Indian Penal Code (1), Contempt of Courts Act and hatred powers of
the Supreme Court and High Court under the Indian constitution (1). The situation has arisen as
more convoluted via the conflicting translations finished the Supreme Court and High Court in
regards to different arrangements under the Indian Penal Code managing impedance with the
organization of equity and avoidance statement contained in the Contempt of Courts Act (1). Not
just the higher court ought to be provided the ability to manage hatred yet in addition the lower
court ought to be given this power (1). Hatred of Court whenever seen according to the
viewpoint of the adjudicators (1), higher legal authorities appear to be great however in the event
that it comes to the point of view of everyday citizens it turns towards its awful impact (1).