Contempt of

Court
.
CONTEMPT .

• Disregard for something that should be considered

• Feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or
beneath consideration
• Feeling or attitude of regarding someone or
something as inferior or worthless
• It is an offence of being willfully disobedient or
disrespectful towards someone or something
• Behaviour of such a kind that opposes or defies
someone’s dignity
• It is often considered as illegal because rules are not
at all obeyed or respected
CONTEMPT OF COURT .

• It is that which curtails or impairs the freedom

of judicial proceedings
• Any conduct that tends to bring the authority
and administration of law into disrespect or
disregard
• It is also to interfere with or to prejudice
parties or their witnesses during litigation
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON CONTEMPT
• Article 129 – Supreme Court to be a court of record
and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of itself
• Article 215 – High Court shall be a court of record
and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of itself

Power to punish for contempt of court under Articles

129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a).
 Art.19 (2)
.

• Contempt a reasonable restriction

• Contempt proceedings are introduced to
preserve the faith of the public in the integrity
of the administration of justice
• It preserves the machinery of justice and
interests of the general public
 .

CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACT,
1971
 DEFINITION
.

• Section 2 (a), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or
criminal contempt; definition not exhaustive
u/Act
b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience
to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or any other process of a court or willful breach
of an undertaking given to a court;
Here, power of court invoked to exercise
obedience to the orders of the court
c) “Criminal contempt” means the publication
.

(whether by words spoken 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;
ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceedings;
 iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or
.

obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

administration of justice in any other manner.
Act committing contempt is calculated to
interfere with the course of justice including
libel, insult to judges and publications by
media prejudicing the fair conduct of the
proceedings of the court
• Contempt of judgment punished to ensure
.

independent and fair administration of justice.

• The disobedience of a judgment must be
willful and the person must have refrained
from giving effect to the decision of a court of
law.
• If a law officer does not follow the decision or
orders of a higher court, then his conduct
clearly shows malafide and disobedience and
disregard towards the court on his part.
• Any interference with a judge, by any private
.

communication with him, for the purpose of

influencing his decision in a case is a serious
contempt.
• It is also contempt to write threatening or abusive
letters to a judge in relation to the exercise of his
judicial functions.
• Any improper interference with the judge while he is
discharging his duties is contempt.
• The motive of the communicator is irrelevant but the
test in such cases is that whether the act complained
of is likely to prejudice the course of justice.
• In cases where a judge’s verdict causes public
.

outrage, a reporter may report the facts and

present an argument against the verdict, but
cannot criticize the judge or imply that he is
unqualified without risking a charge
of criminal contempt.
• The contempt proceedings being quasi
criminal in nature, burden and standard of
proof is the same as required in criminal cases.
 WHAT ACTIONS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO
CONTEMPT .

• Section 3 – Innocent Publication and Distribution of

matter not contempt
• Section 4 – Fair and Accurate report of judicial
proceedings not contempt
• Section 5 – fair criticism of judicial act not contempt
• Section 6- Complaint against presiding officers of
subordinate courts when not contempt
• Section 7- Publication of information relating to
proceedings in chambers or in camera not contempt
except in certain cases.
• Section 8- Other defences not affected
Section 13 – Contempts not punishable in certain
.

cases –
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force
(a)the contempt is of such a nature that it
substantially interferes, or tends substantially to
interfere with the due course of justice;
(b) the court may permit, in any proceeding 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
Section 10- Power of High Court to punish for
.

contempt of Subordinate Courts –

Every High Court shall have and exercise the

same jurisdiction, powers and authority in
respect of contempt of courts subordinate to
it as it has and exercises in respect of
contempt of itself
 Section 12 – Punishment for contempt of
.

court

A contempt of court may be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months or with fine which may extend to 2,000/-
or with both
Provided that accused may be discharged or
punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the
court
 Section 14 – Procedure where contempt is in
.

the face of the Supreme Court or High Court

• Where it is alleged ort appears to the Supreme

Court or HC that a person has been guilty of
contempt committed in its presence or hearing,
the court may cause such person to be detained
in custody and at any time before rising of the
court, on the same day, as early as possible
thereafter,
shall – .

A) cause him to be informed in writing of the

contempt of which he is charged;
B) afford him an opportunity to make his
defense to the charge;
C) after taking such evidence as may be
necessary and after hearing him, proceed, to
determine the matter of the charge; and
D) make such order for the punishment or
discharge of such person as may be just
Section 15 - Cognizance of criminal contempt
.

in other cases

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt

referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court
may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by –
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the
Advocate-General, or
(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi,
such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other
person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.
• (2) in case of criminal contempt of a
.

subordinate court, the High Court may take

action on a reference made to it by the
subordinate court or on a motion made by the
Advocate-General or if in relation to a Union
Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central
Govt may specify
 Section 16 – Contempt by Judge, Magistrate
.

or other person acting judicially

• A Judge, Magistrate or other person acting

judicially shall also be liable for contempt of
his own court or other court in the same
manner as any other individual is liable
 .

Section 17 – Procedure after Cognizance

(1) Notice of every proceeding under Section 15 shall

be served personally on the person charged unless
the court for reasons to be recorded directs
otherwise
• (2) the notice shall be accompanied:
• A) in case proceedings commenced on its own
motion, by a copy of the motion + affidavits; and
• B) in case proceedings commenced on a reference
by a subordinate court, with a copy of the reference
 Section 18 – Hearing of cases of criminal
.

contempt to be by Benches

• Every case of criminal contempt u/s.15 shall

be heard and determined by a Bench of not
less than 2 Judges
 .

Section 19 – Appeals

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or

decision of the High Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt—
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge,
to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to
the Supreme Court:
 (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
.

filed—
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the
High Court, within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme
Court, within sixty days, from the date of the
order appealed against
 Section 20 -Limitation period for filing of
.

contempt proceedings

Period of one year from the date on which the

contempt is alleged to have been committed
 .

CASE LAWS
The conduct which - .

(1) has the effect of diminishing the authority

of the court;
(2) is likely to lower the esteem of the court in
the minds of the public; and
(3) gives an impression that the orders of the
HC may be disobeyed with impunity, amounts
to contempt

(C K Daphtary v. O P Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132).

Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, AIR
1991 SC 2176
.

• CJM, Nadiad, Gujarat assaulted, arrested on

flimsy grounds, handcuffed, tied with rope
• Photographs taken and published by the
police officers
• Held - constituted clear case of criminal
contempt – contemnors punished
• Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in
case of arrest to be followed
 Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) SCR
964
.

• Illegal detention of detenues by police officials

• Habeas corpus petition filed in Supreme Court
• Police officials filing false affidavits and gave
false statements in Court
• Even one of the detenue was approached to
file false affidavit and give false statement in
court
• Held – swearing of false affidavits in a court of
.

law amounts to criminal contempt, as it has

not only the tendency of causing obstruction
in due course of judicial proceedings,
• But also to impede, obstruct or interfere with
administration of justice
• There apologies rejected being made with a
view to escape punishment
 Indian Airports Employees Union v. Ranjan
.

Chatterjee, AIR 1999 SC 880

• Willful disobedience of the order of court

• SC directed for regularization of workmen
upon abolition of contract labour system
• However, certain workmen were not
regularized on the ground that the said
direction did not apply to these workmen
• Held – in order to amount to civil contempt
.

disobedience must be ‘willful’

• It will fall under S.2 (b) of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971
• There is deliberate breach of order of court
 N. Rajanna v. Rajaneesh Goel, 2016
.

• Karnataka High Court: While relying upon the decision of the

Full Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen
Mills Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 646, the Division Bench held that if no
time limit is fixed for compliance of an order, an action for
contempt of court is not maintainable. The complainant had
filed a petition to initiate contempt of court proceedings
against the accused for disobeying Karnataka High Court’s order
in N Rajanna v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 22179 of
2014, wherein, the respondent was directed to consider
the request of the petitioner for regularization of his services.
However, no time was fixed for compliance of the order.
 Shamshuddin v. Sri Haris M.Y., 2016 
.

• The court noted that except where the Court has

given liberty to third parties to initiate action for
contempt of court, a petition to initiate action for civil
contempt can be presented only by an aggrieved
party. Since the complainant was not a party to the
order in his personal capacity, and he had presented
the contempt petition in his personal capacity,
he cannot be said to be a ‘party aggrieved’. 
• ALSO SEE SC Judgement in- D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan
Lal(1988)
 In Re: Justice C.S. Karnan, 2017 .

• Justice Karnan, who is a sitting judge of Calcutta High Court, had written
letters to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking him to take actions against
the corrupt sitting and retired Judges of the Supreme Court and Madras High
Court when he was a Judge of the Madras High Court and had passed an
injunction against his own transfer orders. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi
had asked the Supreme Court to take suo motu action against the Judge to
set an example. The Court hence, initiated the proceedings against him on 
08.02.2017.
• Supreme Court: The 7-Judge Bench found Justice C.S. Karnan, the sitting
Judge of Calcutta High Court, guilty of contempt of court and imposed 6
months’ imprisonment upon him and as a consequence, he was barred from
performing any administrative or judicial functions. The Court said that
Justice Karnan’s actions constitute contempt of this Court, and of the
judiciary of the gravest nature.
 Avishek Raja v. Sanjay Gupta, 2017 .

• Supreme Court: The bench of Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha. JJ., held that a
wrong understanding of award does not amount to wilfull disobedience or
contempt of the Court.
• It was the Petitioners’ contention that the Respondents had not discharged
the wages that the jounalist and non-journalist employees were entitled to,
as per the Majithia Wage Board Award, constituted under Section 9 of The
Working Jounalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The recommendations of the Board
were notified by the Central Government and accepted and upheld by the
Court as a valid and legitimate in its approach.
• The respondents submitted that the issues contested in this petition were
not dealt with in the previous judgment. The Court accepted the
Respondents’ contention.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, In Re Sealing
.

Issue(2018)

• Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul

Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, JJ., addressed a petition concerning the
defiance of the Court orders in regard to the sealing operations by a
Member of Parliament.
• The learned Amicus Curiae, Ranjit Kumar filed a report in the Court
which stated that Manoj Tewari, being a Member of Parliament acted in
defiance of the Apex Court’s order by breaking the seal of premises
during the sealing operations being conducted in accordance to the
orders of the Court.
• Therefore, by taking into consideration the report of the monitoring
committee in which it was stated that there had been violation of
orders of the Court and interference in the administration of justice
which is clearly Contempt of Court. 
 Shillong Times Case 2019 .

The Supreme Court stayed the Meghalaya High Court’s order holding Shillong

Times Editor Patricia Mukhim and Publisher Shobha Chaudhuri, guilty of contempt
of court. The High Court had also imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each on both the
contemnors.
• The Government of Meghalaya decided to withdraw the protocol services provided
to retired Judges and their family members without consulting the High Court. A
suo motu proceeding was endorsed to the Court to take up the matter. Notice was
issued but since the Government remained silent, the Court passed the necessary
order ordering the Government to comply with its directions within a month. This
order is at heart of the controversy. Report, dated 10-12-2018, captioned “When
Judges judge for themselves” were published in Shillong Times, an English daily
newspaper. Referring to the aforementioned order, the Report stated,
• “Justice SR Sen, who is set to retire in March, wanted several facilities for the retired
chief justice and judges, their spouses and children“.
 In re: Vijay Kurle, 2020 .

In the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against advocates Vijay

Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha and Mathews Nedumpara for
scandalous allegations against Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet
Saran, the bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held
Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha guilty of contempt .
• It is pertinent to note that the bench of RF Nariman and Vineet Saran,
JJ had barred Nedumpara
from practicing as an advocate in the Supreme Court for one year,
after he had argued before the Court during a proceeding :
“Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior
Advocates, as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior
Advocates.”
 .

Tests in
Commonwealth
and USA
• The contempt doctrine fell into disuse, and England abolished
the offence of “scandalising the court” in 2013.
.

• The U.K. Law Commission that recommended abolition of the

contempt law said that the law was originally intended to
maintain a “blaze of glory” around courts.
• Contempt has practically become obsolete in foreign
democracies, with jurisdictions recognising that it is an archaic
law.

However, Law Commission of India noted that there were two

differences in circumstances in India and the United Kingdom, which
warranted a continuation of the offence in India.  First, India continues
to have a high number of criminal contempt cases, while the last
offence of Scandalising the Court in the UK was in 1931.  Second, the
offence of Scandalising the Court continues to be punishable in UK
under other laws.  The Commission observed that abolishing the
offence in India would leave a legislative gap. 
• Canada ties its test for contempt to real,
.

substantial and immediate dangers to the

administration.
• American courts also no longer use the law of
contempt in response to comments on judges or
legal matters.
• The Law Commission of India (Chair: Justice B.S.
Chauhan) submitted its report on “Review of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971” (2018) (Report
No.274)-The Commission concluded that there
was no requirement to amend the Act