BHARATI VIDYAPEETH INSTITUTE

OF MANAGEMENT &
RESEARCH
A-4 Block, Baba Ramdev Marg, Shiva Enclave, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi, Delhi 110063

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
ASSIGNMENT
Submitted to:
Dr. Reena Gupta
HOD – LAW

SUBMITTED BY:
Rajnandini Panwar
ERP: 0231LLB063
Date:1-11-2023
CONTEMPT OF COURT:
The court plays a very important role in a country in
maintaining the public order and also the implementation of
the laws that prevail in the country. Actions or behaviours that
demonstrate disdain or disobedience toward a court of law or
its orders are referred to as contempt of court. It might
manifest in a number of ways, such as acting disruptively in
court, disobeying orders, disclosing material that could taint a
case, or even disparaging the judge or the legal system in a
way that compromises the administration of justice. The
seriousness of contempt of court is necessary to uphold the
legitimacy and power of the legal system. The gravity of the
offence and the jurisdiction can be determined the range of the
penalties for contempt, which can include fines and
imprisonment.

HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT:

The practice of contempt of court has a lengthy, centuries-long
history. Its roots are in English common law, from which it has
developed into a variety of forms over time. Here is a quick
synopsis of the past:

English Common Law: The origins of contempt of court can be

traced back to the Middle Ages in England, when the judiciary
worked to uphold law and order. Originally, disrespectful
behavior in front of the court and disobedience to its
instructions were linked to the concept of contempt.

American development: English common law brought the idea

of contempt of court to the United States. It has been
integrated into the legal system in the United States, with
state-by-state variations in the laws and procedures. The First
Amendment safeguards of the US Constitution
Contempt of court in India has a history that is influenced by
British common law and has evolved over time. Here's a brief
overview of the history of contempt of court in India:

British Influence: Contempt of court in India can be traced back

to the colonial period when India was under British rule. The
British legal system, including contempt laws, was introduced
in India during this time. The concept of contempt of court was
derived from English common law and was incorporated into
the Indian legal system.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926: The first legislation

specifically dealing with contempt of court in India was the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. This law provided a legal
framework for addressing contemptuous behavior in the Indian
courts. It classified contempt into civil and criminal contempt
and outlined the procedures for dealing with contemptuous
conduct.

Post-Independence Developments: After India gained

independence in 1947, several amendments were made to the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. These amendments aimed to
strike a balance between the need to uphold the dignity of the
judiciary and protect the fundamental rights of individuals,
including freedom of speech and expression.
The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act: The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, was passed, which was the most important step in the
history of contempt of court in India. The scope and procedures
for contempt actions in India were redesigned by this Act,
which superseded the 1926 Act. It aimed to more clearly define
the law and make the distinction between criminal and civil
contempt.
Development of Contempt Jurisprudence: The Indian judiciary
has issued rulings that have defined the parameters of
contempt legislation, so aiding in the development of contempt
jurisprudence over time. The Indian Supreme Court has
established rules in a number of decisions regarding what
defines contempt and how it should be handled.

Free Expression and Judicial Fairness: In India, contempt of

court has frequently. The court act as a guardian of the rights
of the citizen of the country and hence it is the responsibility of
the court to ensure free expression and also to maintain the
decorum of the court.

TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF COURT:

There are two primary categories of contempt of court: civil
contempt and criminal contempt. Below is a thorough
description of each kind:

Civil Contempt: When a person or party disregards a court's

order, judgment, decree, or other directive, it is considered civil
contempt of court. Protecting the interests of the parties
engaged in a case and ensuring compliance with the court's
orders are the main goals of civil contempt. The following are
important facets of civil contempt:

a. Non-Compliance: Willful disregard for a court order is

grounds for civil contempt. This could entail disobeying a
restraining order, failing to comply with a court order, or
failing to pay a monetary reward that was mandated.
b. Remedial in Nature: The goal of civil contempt is to force
the contemnor—the one who is in contempt—to follow the
court's ruling rather than to penalize them. The court may
 use fines or other forms of coercion until compliance is
obtained in order to accomplish this.

c. Purge: Usually, contemptors have the chance to "purge"

themselves of contempt by doing as the court directs. The
contempt proceedings may end after they've done this.

Criminal Contempt: Unlike civil contempt, criminal

contempt of court pertains to acts or conduct that
compromise the honor, power, or proper operation of the
court. Its goal is to preserve the integrity of the court, not
to enforce adherence to a particular court ruling. The
following are important elements of criminal contempt:

a. Disruptive Behavior: A variety of behaviors can result in

criminal contempt, including interfering with the court's
business, disrespecting the judge or the court, and
engaging in any activity that makes it more difficult to
administer justice.
b. Public Criticism: It constitutes criminal contempt to
criticize the legal system or court procedures in a way
that undermines their legitimacy or obstructs the just
administration of justice. This involves undermining
ongoing legal proceedings by public documents or
publication.
c. Punitive Measures: Criminal contempt, unlike civil
contempt, is punitive in character. The court may
impose fines, imprisonment, or other penalties to
punish the violator for their conduct, with the purpose
of preserving the judiciary's dignity and authority.

It is crucial to remember that the specific aspects and

processes for dealing with contempt of court
proceedings differ by jurisdiction, and each country
may have its own contempt laws and standards. The
distinction between civil and criminal contempt assists
courts in maintaining their authority, protecting the
rights of parties involved in proceedings, and ensuring
that justice is served while simultaneously dealing with
disturbances and disrespect for the judicial system.

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971:

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is a critical
component of Indian legislation that governs contempt
of court proceedings. It defines civil and criminal
contempt, clarifies the legislation, and distinguishes
between civil and criminal contempt. Here is a full
breakdown of the essential provisions and elements of
the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act:

Contempt (Section 2): The Act defines "contempt of

court" as either civil or criminal contempt. Any act or
publication that scandalizes or threatens to scandalize
or reduce the authority of the court, interferes with the
administration of justice, or prejudices a fair trial falls
under this category.

Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)): Civil contempt is defined

as willful disobedience of a court's judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ, or other proceedings, or willful
breach of such procedures.
Contemnor may have an opportunity to "purge"
themselves of contempt by complying with the court's
order.
The court may impose fines or coercive measures to
ensure compliance.
It is primarily remedial and meant to secure the rights
of parties involved in a case.
Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)):
Criminal contempt pertains to any act that scandalizes
or tends to scandalize the court, interferes with its
administration of justice, or prejudices a fair trial. Key
points related to criminal contempt include:
It is punitive in nature and seeks to maintain the
court's authority and dignity.
Penalties may include imprisonment or fines to punish
the contemnor for their actions.
Criticism of the judiciary, judges, or court proceedings
that undermines their credibility may be considered
criminal contempt. Penalties may include imprisonment
or fines to punish the contemnor for their actions.
Criticism of the judiciary, judges, or court proceedings
that undermines their credibility may be considered
criminal contempt
Contempt by Publication (Section 3): This section
addresses contempt by publishing facts or opinions that
could affect an ongoing case or undermine the court's
authority. Certain safeguards, however, preserve
truthful reporting of judicial procedures and public
debates on subjects of public interest.

Powers of the High Court and the Supreme Court

(Section 10): The Act empowers the High Courts and
the Supreme Court to commence and hear contempt
proceedings. They have the authority to punish for
contempt, although the sentence for criminal contempt
should not exceed six months in prison or a fine of Rs.
2,000, or both.
Limitation on Contempt Proceedings (Section 12):
Contempt proceedings must be initiated within one
year from the date of the contemptuous act or the date
when it comes to the court's notice.

Defenses and Fair Comment (Section 13):

The Act allows for certain defenses, such as showing
that the contemptuous act was unintentional or bona
fide criticism. Fair and accurate reporting of judicial
proceedings is also protected.

Appeal (Section 19):

The Act provides for appeals against orders in contempt
cases. An appeal can be filed with a higher court.
Contempt by Judges (Section 14):
The Act also addresses contempt by judges and
provides a procedure for dealing with such cases.

Amendments (2021):
The Contempt of Courts Act was amended in 2021 to
introduce more safeguards for free speech, ensuring
that criticism of the judiciary or judges, as long as it's
fair and in the public interest, is not treated as
contempt.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, aims to strike a

balance between protecting the dignity of the judiciary
and upholding the fundamental rights, including
freedom of speech and expression, of individuals and
the media. It provides a legal framework for handling
contempt of court cases and specifies the powers and
limitations of the courts in this regard.

PERIOD OF LIMITATION:
The section 20 of the Contempt of the court act
provides
“no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt,
either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry
of a period of one year from the date on which the
contempt is alleged to have been committed”. It apply
both in civil and criminal cases.
Also only the supreme courts and the high courts can
punish for their contempt. Section 14 of the contempt
of court act 1971 empowers supreme court and high
court to take action in case of their own contempt.
Section 15 of the Contempt of the court act empowers
Supreme court and the High court to act in case the
contempt of court made any court other than Supreme
court or high court, and on the motion moved by the
advocate general .

DEFENCES FOR THE CONTEMPT OF

COURT:
Civil contempt is the one in which the wilful
disobedience of the court order’s is done also
disobedience should be of valid order to constitute
contempt of court. Below are some defences in case of
civil contempt of the court
1. If the person unknowingly commits the contempt of
court, he did not had the intention to do so but he
did not had the proper knowledge of the order and
unwillingly he committed the contempt . But the
person had to prove it to the court that he does not
intended to disrespect the court but since he had no
knowledge he committed such act.
2. If the court’s order are unclear or ambiguous that
the person is not able to understand the declared
decision and in this state of not knowing the true
essence of the judgement, he committed the
contempt then he can use it as a defence that he did
not had the clarity of the decision.
3. If the rights of the contemptor was violated during
the due process of judicial proceedings then he may
take the defence
4. There are conditions when it is the necessity of the
time that the contempt has been caused without the
intention. So in this case the contemptor has to
prove that it was necessary for him to do such an
act.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
A critical aspect of the courts act 1971 is the balance between
the protection of free speech and administration of justice.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed to each and every individual
and it is their birth right to exercise freedom of speech but
sometimes when a person is exercising his right to freedom of
speech, he is not aware of the line and in that cases that
statement is regarded as contemptuous. So every one have the
freedom to speech but contempt of court is imposed as a
reasonable restriction to it.
It should be the duty of the court to create a balance between
the contempot of court and the enjoyment of the right by an
individual. Although freedom of speech is a fundamental right
but it is not absolute so court can impose reasonable restrivtion
on them so that justice would be ensured

CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, contempt of court refers to actions that
undermine the authority and dignity of the judicial system. This
can include actions like disrupting court proceedings,
disobeying court orders, or publishing prejudicial material.
Contempt of court is taken seriously as it can hinder the
administration of justice. Penalties for contempt may vary by
jurisdiction, but they often involve fines, imprisonment, or
other sanctions to ensure the integrity of the legal process. It is
essential to respect and uphold the principles of a fair and
impartial judiciary to maintain the rule of law in any society.