Contempt of Court

• Contempt in its simple literal meaning is disgrace, scorn or disobedience. Contempt of court is the offense of being disobedient or disrespectful towards the court, its officers, or the proceedings of a court of law. Thus the contempt of court is any behavior or wrongdoing that conflicts with or challenges the authority, integrity, and superiority of the court.
• These acts might include failure to comply with requests, witness tampering, withholding evidence, interruption of proceedings, or defying a court order. These wrongful acts may be committed by attorneys, officers of the court, court personnel, jurors, witnesses, protestors, or any party involved in a court proceeding. Contempt in its legal conception means disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard.
• Under  Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt of court as civil contempt or criminal contempt
• Article 129, 142 (2) and 215 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of empowering courts for the contempt. Article 129 and 142 (2) empower the Supreme Court, Article 215, empowers High Courts to punish people for their respective contempt.  High Courts have been given special powers to punish contempt of subordinate courts, as per Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.

Article 129:

• The Supreme Court shall be a court or record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Article 142 part 2:

• Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself

Article215:

• Every 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.

The Necessity of the Concept of Contempt of Court:

• The object of contempt proceedings is not to protect judges personally from criticism but to protect the public by preserving the authority of the court and the administration of justice from undue attack.
• To uphold the dignity of the courts (judicial system) and the majesty of law and to keep the administration of justice unpolluted.
• To protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public.
• To ensure compliance with the orders given by the courts and in their execution, and for punishing those who are responsible for the lapses in the manner of compliance.
• To provide a mechanism to prevent interference in the course of justice and to maintain the authority of the law
• Further, the availability of contempt jurisdiction provides efficacy to the functioning of the judicial forum and enables the enforcement of the orders on account of its deterrence effect on avoidance.

Types of Contempts:

• Contempts are stated broadly to fall into two groups, viz., civil contempt and criminal contempt. civil contempts are contempts which involve a private injury occasioned by disobedience to the judgments, order or another process of the court. On the other hand, criminal contempts are right from their inception in the nature of offences.

Civil Contempt:

• Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has been defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Ingredients of Civil Contempt:

• Any disobedience or the breach must be done willfully (governed by will).
• The disobedience must be a deliberate and intentional act or omission which must be understood in contrast with the act done accidentally, without purpose and unintentional.
• the making of a valid court order, knowledge of the order by respondent, the ability of the respondent to render compliance.
• It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order.

Case Laws:

• In Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405 case the court held that mere disobedience of an order, judgment or decree of a court may not be sufficient to amount to a civil contempt; the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the Act.
• In Ashok Paper Kamagar Union vs. Dharam Godha; AIR 2004 SC 105 case the Supreme Court convicted the contemner on the basis of evidence which was only of preponderant probabilities (Evidence that persuades a judge or jury to lean to one side as opposed to the other, during the course of litigation.)
• In the State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri 1993 Cr.L.J. 726 case the court held that the delay in implementing a final order is no different from disregarding those orders and avoiding implementing them would most certainly constitute an act of contempt.
• In Dr.Sajad Majid vs. Dr.Zahoor Ahmed and anothers 1989 Cr.L.J. 2065  case mere pendency of appeal before the appellate court against the order, will not absolve the party not to comply with the order and if he so does, it will be on his risk without any legal justification and the provisions of appeal even if availed without any stay, will expose the party to contempt proceedings for non-compliance and pendency of such appeal will not protect him from facing the proceeding of non-compliance of the order.
• In Santosh Kumar Srivastava vs. M.D. U.P. Rajkaiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., 2001 All.L.J.776 case the court made a distinction between a contempt proceeding and an execution proceeding – “Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied with the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment or decree was wilful.”

Criminal Contempt

• Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
• (i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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 proceeding, or
• (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
• The definition of the term contempt in section 2 (c) makes it clear that contempt may be committed either by publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or signs) or by the doing of any other act which leads to any of the consequences contemplated in sub-clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of subsection (c) of section 2.
• Note the phrase “tends to”. It means it is not necessary that scandalising or prejudicing any court or interference must have been completed. Even though the process might have just commenced or in other words tending to scandalise or to prejudice or to interfere or to obstruct administration of justice is also criminal contempt.
• It is not necessary for the contempt that the act must have been done either in the face of the court or just in front of it. The word spoken or otherwise, or published, or acts done might be outside the court but the same must be intended to scandalise or prejudice or likely to interfere with or obstruct the fair administration of justice and are punishable as criminal contempt of the court.

Case Laws:

• In Hari Singh Nagra vs. Kapil Sibal, 2011 Cr.L.J. 102 at P.108 (SC)  case the court held that “Scandalising the Court‟ is convenient way of describing a publication which although it does not relate to any specific case either post or pending or any specific judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to undermine the authority of the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice.
• In State vs. R.N.Patra,1976 Cri.L.J.440. case the respondent addressed to the chief justice of India as to the conduct of the District Judge and further stated that the High Court Chief Justice being in interested relationship with the District Judge cannot hold a proper enquiry. The court held that such a statement was motivated and mala fide grossly interfering with the administration of justice and lowers its authority and prestige within the meaning of section 2 (c) (i) and (iii) of the contempt of court Act.
• In N. Rajgopala Rao vs. Murtaza Mujtabbi (1974) 1 ALT 170 case a news item published in the Newspaper in which an impression has been sought to be conveyed to the general reader that a dishonest person has been appointed as a judge merely because of his political affiliation with the lawyer‟s wing of the R.S.S. The motive, to common reader, would not only be attributable to the law minister or the Government but also the collegiums of Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and to the Hon‟ble Judge of the Supreme Court who was consulted in this matter. The court held this is an effort to scandalise the appointment of Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court thereby bringing him into disrepute in the eye of general public.
• In Ananta Lal Singh vs. Alfred Henry Watson, AIR 1931 Cal 257 case the court held that comment upon an advocate which had reference to the conduct of his case might amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle which was applicable with regard to criticism of a judge or the judgement.