Court of Record and Contempt of Court

The concept of Court of Record basically originated in England. Indian Constitution’s Article
129 and Article 215 declare the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively as Courts of
record.

A Court of Record is the one whose

1. Records including Judgments, orders, directions and other proceedings are meant to be
preserved.
2. Judgments, orders, directions and other proceedings are admissible as evidence in all courts
thorough out the country and their admissibility cannot be challenged when they are
produced .
3. It has the power to punish individuals for its contempt.

According to Supreme Court of India, a Court of Record is one whose acts and judicial
proceedings are enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony and which has the authority to
fineand imprison a person for contempt of itself as well as of subordinate courts (A.K.Ghose V
Arabinda Bose,1953).

While the contempt jurisdiction of subordinate courts are kept with the concerned High Courts
by virtue of a 1971 law of Parliament , the contempt jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme
Courts are inherent in them by virtue ofArticle 129 and Article 215.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

In order to regulate contempt jurisdiction, Parliament had enacted the act which classifies
contempt of court as civil and criminal,

Civil contempt means any willful disobedience of any judgment, order, direction or decree or
other process of any court or willful breach of undertaking given to a court.

Criminal Contempt happens when an individual

1. Scandalizes the judiciary

2. Tends to scandalize the judiciary
3. Lowers the authority of any Court
4. Tends to lower the authority of any Court
5. Interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings
6. Obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.

The punishment prescribed for both civil and criminal contempt is simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees,
orwith both.

VAJIRAM AND RAVI Contempt of Court Page 1

According to SCI, the object of the 1971 Act is to protect the seat of justice, not the judge.
Therefore, under the Act, even a judge can be held responsible for contempt of her own Court.

The use of Criminal contempt jurisdiction by Superior Courts has been a debatable issue
because it is “seen” by some as going against principles of natural justice and interferes with
the freedom of speech and expression by the citizens.

In re Arundhati Roy, 2002 , SCI held that the expressions such as “ Court displays disturbing
willingness to issue notice on an absurd despicable entirely unsubstantiated petition” or the
“Court notice was intended to silence criticism and muzzle dissent” did not fall in the category
of fair criticism and the contemnor therein was convicted and sentenced to a day’s
imprisonment.

The 2006 Amendment

In 2006 , the parliament made an amendment to the 1971 Act, which provided that the Court
“may “ allow justification by truth as valid defence in contempt proceedings if it is satisfied
thatthe alleged statement was made bonafide and in public interest.

274th Report of 21st Law Commission of India (April 2018)

The law commission was asked to look into whether invoking criminal contempt jurisdiction
on the ground of “scandalising the court “ be done away with by amending the Act, in the light
of Countries like UK doing away with the same. The law Commission headed by Justice (retd)
B.S.Chauhan recommended against such a move on the ground that it wont dilute the power
available to Superior Courts as they derive the same from the constitution. On the other hand, it
may drastically affect the functioning of subordinate judiciary, the protection of which is
currently ensured by the statute.

VAJIRAM AND RAVI Contempt of Court Page 2