 CONTEMPT OF COURT

 The simple literal meaning of contempt is

disgrace, scorn or disobedience;
 whereas, in law, it means an offence against

the dignity of a court, or a legislative body.

 The purpose of the contempt proceedings is

to safeguard the dignity of the court and the

administration of justice.
 It is quasi criminal in nature.
 Contempt means disgrace, scorn or
disobedience.
 In law, it is an offence against dignity of a court
or legislative body.
 Covers any act done in violation of a direct order
of the King or of any governmental process.
 Constitutional doctrines are the result of history,
contempt power is also not an exception.
 It was developed in Britain.
 In the time of Edward III, persons were
punished for contempt, for going armed into
the King's palace.
 In England, King was treated as the
representative of God with unquestionable
authority
 King found it necessary to have kingly powers
exercised through representatives and one
such representative is courts.
 The courts were considered as representative

of King.
 Exercise of contempt powers derived from a

presumed concept of unquestionable

authority of King.
 The imposition of fine as a punishment for
contempt of court was developed.
 Common to forfeit an offender’s property for

contempt of court.
 Later this was changed to fine which in turn

was later refined into a procedure where the

offender was imprisoned until the fine was
paid.
 the practice of contempt power developed
 Till the 17th century, contempt was treated
procedurally in the ordinary course of law
 summary punishment was meted out only

when the accused specifically confessed his

guilt.
 change in the procedure in contempt cases

and instead of the ordinary procedure,

summary procedure
 The concept behind summary punishment , is

the famous Anon case.

In India also the position is not different
 The inherent contempt powers of the court

are available with High Courts and the

Supreme Court only, as courts of record.
 The contempt law is the product of British

rule.
Law of contempt of courts in India
 The concept of contempt of court was
brought to Indian law by the advent of British
rule.
 Mayor’s Court was created by the Charter of

1727.
 The first court vested with power to punish

for contempt.
 The High Court’s Act recognized the power of

High Courts as superior courts and the power

to punish for contempt.
 By section 106 of Government of India Act,
1915 the contempt jurisdiction of the High
Courts were allowed.
 Under Government of India Act 1935, the

power, authority and special summary

jurisdiction of various High Courts then
existing were continued.
 The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926.
 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952
 The term contempt of court was not defined

in the 1952 Act

 Act was also silent about procedures to be

followed in contempt cases.

 Appointment of Sanyal Committee,
 To look into the defects of the existing law

and to recommend suggestions to improve

the law in India.
 The Committee compared the position with

other countries and submitted its report in

1963
 Committee recommended for classification of

contempt under civil and criminal heads.

 The definition so suggested was incorporated
in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
 The next recommendation of the Committee

was regarding pending judicial proceedings.

 Regarding the meaning of pending judicial

proceeding, the Committee recommended

that a proceeding is said to be pending until
all its stages, including at appellate stage,
and where no appeal is filed until the period
of limitation for such appeal has expired.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN
RELATION TO CONTEMPT
Supreme Court as a Court of Record: Article
129
 High Court as a Court of Record: Article 215
 Superintendence of High Courts: Article 227
The provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971
 Preamble
 An Act to define and limit the powers of

certain Courts in punishing contempt of

Courts and to regulate their procedure in
relation thereto.
 The Constitution incorporated grounds on
which reasonable restrictions can be imposed
on the fundamental rights of citizen under
19(2) which includes Contempt of Court.
 The Media is free to criticize a system.
 In the garb of criticism, the press
cannot commit contempt of court.
 the journalists have the following rights with
reference to the courts activity.
 The right to information about court
proceedings.
 The right to participate in respect of matters

and issues before the courts.

 The right to free speech irrespective of

pending proceedings.
 The right to evaluate and criticize the working

of the courts.
 Section 2 (a) of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 deals with civil contempt and criminal
contempt.
 Section 2 (b) - 'Civil Contempt' means willful

disobedience to any judgment, decree, order

or other process of a Court or willful breach
of an undertaking given to a Court.
 Civil contempt is a sanction to enforce
compliance with an order.
 It means willful disobedience to any
judgement, decree, writ or other process of
court.
 Section 2 (c) The "criminal contempt" means
the publication
 (Whether by words, spokes or written, or by

signs, or by visible representations, or

otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which
i)scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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
proceedings; or
 iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or

obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

administration of justice in any other manner
 Civil contempt consists of disobeying the
orders and criminal contempt is about
obstructing the administration of justice.
 Criminal contempt is of three kinds-
1.Contempt in the face of court, i.e., directly
interfering with court proceedings;
2.Contempt in relation to specific, imminent or
pending proceedings by doing something
which interferes with the due administration of
justice;
3.Contempt by scandalizing the judges.
 Section 2(c) of Contempt of Court Act,
following activities be considered as criminal
contempt:
 Publications which are intended to or are

likely prejudice fair trial

or conduct of criminal civil proceedings.
 Publications which prejudge issues in
pending proceedings.
 Publications which scandalize or otherwise

lower the authority of the court.

 Acts which interfere with or obstruct persons
having duties to discharge in a court of
justice.
 Acts which interfere with persons over whom

court exercises a special jurisdiction.

 Acts in abuse of the process of the court.
 Acts in breach of duty by the persons

officially connected with the court or its

process
 Hurling shoes at a Judge to overawe him is
held to be criminal contempt in R.K. Garg,
Advocate v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
What is Scandalizing?
1.Imputing dishonesty to a judge by stating
that he controlled the hearing and
manipulating in getting erroneous Judgment
from another judge of the same Bench .
2.Publishing scandalous matter respecting the
court after adjudication calculated to lower the
authority of the court and sense of confidence
of the people in the administration of justice .
3.Allegation that 'justice is sold' or 'justice is
auctioned.
4.To say that a judge is a prejudiced judge.
5.Reply to a show-cause notice stating that the
respondent's experience of court affairs in
India is worse and that instead of finding his
fault.
6.Notice imputing malice, partially and
dishonesty to the judge.
7.An attack on a judge ascribing to him
favoritism in his judicial or official capacity.
8.Newspaper article proceeding inter alia to
attribute improper motives to the judges,
having a clear tendency to affect the prestige
and dignity of the court.
9.Allegation that a particular judge gives
judgments or orders always in favour of the
clients of a particular advocate
10.Aspersions against magistrate in transfer
application about conspiracy to implicate the
accused in a false case of theft and acceptance
of bribe by him.
11.Unwarranted and defamatory allegations
touching the character and ability of the judge
in an application for transfer of a civil
proceeding.
12.Allegations against judge in transfer
application which are scandalous, scurrilous
and made with determined effort to lower the
authority of the court .
 13.Scandalous allegations against Supreme
Court judges in affidavit without any basis .
 14.Charging the judiciary as 'an instrument of

oppression' and the judges as 'guided by

class hatred, class interests and class
prejudices, instinctively favouring the rich
and against the poor',
 According to Section 2(c) of Contempt of
Court Act, following activities be considered
as criminal contempt
 Publications which are intended to or are

likely prejudice fair trial

or conduct of criminal civil proceedings.
 Publications which prejudge issues in
pending proceedings.
 Publications which scandalize or otherwise

lower the authority of the court.

The press and contempt of court
 Media generally involves in reporting, writing,
criticizing, analyzing the activity of every
system including the judiciary.
 The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary

party of the freedom .

 His privilege is not other and no higher.
 Scandalizing the court,
 commenting on the proceedings of a pending

criminal case reflecting on the judge, the

parties, their witnesses,
 writings affecting the proceedings of a
pending case which has a tendency to
prejudice the public, criticism of the conduct
of a judge are some of the publications which
amount to contempt.
Procedure
 Section 14provides for procedure .
 Contempt in the face of the
court means a contempt which the judge sees
with his own eyes; so that
he needs no evidence of witnesses.
 He can deal with it himself
 Section 15 provides how the Supreme Court or
the High Court may take action:
 On its motion or
 On a motion made by
the Advocate-General, or
 (b) any other person with the consent In writing
of the Advocate General, and
 (c) in relation to the High Court for the Union
Territory of Delhi, the specified law officer or
with his consent in writing by any other person.
Apology
 Section 12(0) deals with the punishment for
contempt of Court.
 It contains a proviso "that the accused may be

discharged or the punishment awarded may

be remitted upon an apology being made to
the satisfaction of the court.
 in order to be affective, the apology made
should be
 (i) to the satisfaction of the court and should

be
 (ii) bonafide
Punishment
 Section 12 prescribes the punishment for
contempt of court 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.
Surendranath Banerjee v. The Chief Justice
and Judges of the HIgh Court of Bengal
 One of the early cases of contempt was
against Surendranath Banerjee, owner and
publisher of a paper called 'the Bengalee’.
 An article appeared in his paper containing

the remarks against Mr. Justice Norris.

 Held that it was a most scandalous and
wholly indefensible attack upon Mr. Justice
Norris.
 The Chief Justice he sentenced
Surendra Nath Banerjee to two months simple
imprisonment.
 The printer on account of his imperfect
knowledge of the English language was
discharged.
Young India case
 Another case where authorities used
contempt power against the freedom fighters.
 Gandhi published certain documents in a

pending case and also commented on certain

civil dissent cases.
 Gandhi made it a point to argue that the

press had a right to

discuss questions of public importance and
to indulge in public criticism
 Truth was no defense and fair comment was
not a permissible plea.
 Gandhi refused to apologize.
 
Vasudevan Case
 Senior civil servants of the IAS cadre were
convicted for contempt by different courts,
three in Tamilnadu, one in Kerala and one in
Karnataka Government alone.
 Supreme Court sentenced Mr. J. Vasudevan,

Secretary to the Karnataka Government in

charge of Housing and Urban Development,
to one month's simple imprisonment.
 Invoking inherent powers under Constitution
Supreme Court held him guilty of willful
disobedience.
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. The
State of Madras
 allegations of bribery and corruption against
one Sub-Magistrate in an article published in
a Telgu Weekly.
 took the plea that the allegations of taking

bribery are true and made in good faith.

 held the appellant guilty of contempt
Brahama Prakash Sharma v. U.P
 Dealt with the similar issue
 Whether a defamatory statement amounted to

contempt, the court had to consider all the

surrounding circumstances and materials
before the court, particularly the limited
publication of libel.
 The two considerations lay down by this
Court when dealings with contempt of court
amounting to scandalisation of court deserve
special attention.
 Firstly, whether the reflection on the conduct

or character of the judge is within the limits

of fair and reasonable criticism,
 Secondly, whether it is a mere libel or
defamation of the judge, or amounts to a
contempt of court.
E. M. S. Namboodripad v. T.
Narayanan Nambiar’s
 Said that “judges are guided and dominated
by class hatred, class interest and class
prejudices”, instinctively favour the rich
against the poor.
 He said that as part of the ruling classes the

judiciary “works against workers, peasants,

and other sections of the working classes”
and “the law and the system of judiciary
essentially seem the exploiting classes
 The Court observed “while it is intended that
there should be freedom of speech and
expression, it is also intended that in exercise
of the right, contempt of court shall not be
committed.
 held the guilty of contempt of court.
Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar
of Orissa High Court
 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cuttack,
was suspended by the High Court of Orissa
under Article 235 of the Constitution of India
because of his unsatisfactory work and gross
indiscipline .
 Letters written to Registrar
 The Court sentenced him to two months

simple imprisonment.
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker
 Mr. P. Shiv Shanker (former a High Court
Judge) and was Minister for Law, delivered as
speech at a seminar on “Accountability of the
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary under the
Constitution of India” organised by the Bar
Council of Hyderabad on November 23, 1987.
 The offending portions of the said speech as
detailed by Justice Mukharji are as follows:
 (a) “The Supreme Court composed of the

element from the elite class had their

unconcealed sympathy for the haves i.e. the
Zamindars....”
 (b) Anti-social elements, i.e. FERA violators,

bride burners and a whole horde of

reactionaries have found their haven in the
Supreme Court.
 The speech of the Minister read in its proper
perspective, did not bring the administration
of justice into dispute or impose
administration of justice.
 The Minister not guilty of contempt of court.
Re Vijay Kumar
 On 10-03-1996 there was a news item
captioned as “PUMPS FOR ALL” in The Sunday
Tribune wherein it was alleged, inter-alia,
that two sons of a Senior Judge of the
Supreme Court have been allotted Petrol
Pumps out of the discretionary quota of the
Petroleum Minister.
 After verification of records it was found that
the news item referred above were patently
false.
 The Court issued show cause notices to both

editors and publishers of the newspapers as

to why they may no be punished for
contempt of court.
 The unconditional apology offered by the

publishers and editors

 Accepted these apology.
Truth or Justification

 The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as such,

do not specify any defenses for the
contemner.
Aditya Vikram Birla v. Parmanand
Agarwal
 Observed "an impression has gained ground
that in matters relating to contempt by
scandalizing the court, truth or justification is
no defense.
Perspective Publications Ltd v. State
of Maharashtra

The three judge bench ruled that, in the law of

contempt there are hardly any English or
Indian Cases in which a defense has been
recognized.
Baradakanta v. Registrar, Orissa
 It is not open to any contemner to take the
plea that truth of the allegations is a
justification.
The Contempt of Courts
(Amendment) Act, 2006
 The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 originally
did not provide any defences.
 Introduced a new Section 13(b) which states:

"The court may permit, in any proceedings for

contempt of court, justification by truth as
a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in
public interest and the request for invoking
the said defence is bona fide."
Pritam Lal case
 Power of contempt cannot be restricted and
trammeled by any ordinary
legislation, including the Contempt of Court
Act.
Individual Judge
 Criticism or defamatory statement of an
Individual judge necessary not contempt of
court, if it pertains to his individual capacity.
Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The State of
U.P.
 Counsel appeared in a proceeding under the
U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act 1950.
 Member of the Board of Revenue abused him

saying "Nalayak Gadhe Salle ko Jail

Bhijwadunga; kis Idiot Ne Advocate Bana Diya
Hai .
 Complained that committed contempt of his

own court as well as that of the High Court.

 Raised a preliminary objection stating that
the High Court was not competent to take
cognizance of the alleged contempt without
any reference from the subordinate court or
without a motion by the Advocate-General .
 The High Court rejected the preliminary

objection and held that the application was

maintainable.
 Apex Court, on the question whether the
High Court can take suo motu cognizance of
contempt of subordinate/inferior Court .
 The Court held
 Does not restrict the power of the High Court

to take cognizance of and punish contempt

of a subordinate court, on its own motion.