Judiciary is considered to be the guardian of people’s rights and therefore ensures the confidence of the society. Undermining the Court’s authority by scandalizing it or by willful non-compliance of its orders is punishable as contempt of court. In legal parlance, contempt of court is understood as the act of disobeying or being disrespectful to a court of law and its officers. Contempt of Court may be defined as disobedience to the court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice, and dignity. It represents a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“the Act”) classifies contempt into two categories:
- Civil Contempt
- Criminal Contempt
We shall discuss the same in the latter part of this article in detail.
Constitutional Provisions
Let’s have a look at the constitutional provisions that empower the Supreme Court to deal with contempt.
The Contempt Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is part of its inherent and plenary jurisdiction. The powers have been provided under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
Article 129
While dealing with ‘contempt of court’, it is very important to understand the scope of Article 129 of the Constitution. According to the said provision, the Supreme Court is a court of record and has been vested with the powers to punish the person who has committed contempt of itself.
Although the law of contempt is largely governed by the 1971 Act, it is now settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court derive their jurisdiction and power fromArticles 215 and 129 of the Constitution respectively.
Article 142
UnderArticle 142 the Supreme Court of India in addition to passing any such order to do complete justice also has the power to punish for contempt.
You must be wondering, as to why inherent power is to be invoked under Article 142 when expressly it has been provided for under Article 129.
Article 129 of the Constitution confers substantive power on the Supreme Court to punish for its contempt. Article 142(2) of the Constitution supplements it by conferring the power of investigation and punishment through the procedure prescribed by law.
Provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act
Now, let’s have a look at the provisions enshrined under the Contempt of Courts Act, to the limited extent in which it vests powers in the Supreme Court, and also understand contempt as defined under the Act. However, we will first discuss the types of contempt that are enlisted under the Act and the necessary ingredients thereof.
Civil Contempt
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that the under mentioned action would result in Civil Contempt:
- Willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or another process of a court or;
- Willful breach of an undertaking to a court.
Willful Disobedience
For civil contempt, the disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court must be willful. If a person ignores the order of the Court or acts in violation of it then such an act willfully amounts to disobedience. It means that if a person intentionally contempt the court then he shall be held guilty and liable for his actions. Whether or not the act of disobedience is willful or not is an issue that is decided by the Court. The Court shall take into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court clarified [i] that the contempt of Court is disobedience to the court, whereby a person acts intentionally in opposition to the authority, justice, and dignity thereof. The act is a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order. Hence, an act that is not willful or done unintentionally cannot be considered as contempt but ignorance of the law can never be taken as a defense for that unintentional act.
There was an order of the Court [ii] wherein it directed the authorities to pay the salary of employees. However, some employees were not paid their salaries as their appointments were under serious doubt. The Court stated that this cannot be considered as the contempt of court’s order as the act was not deliberate and there was no willful breach on the authorities’ part.
Criminal Contempt
Section 2(c) of the Act provides that the following acts would result in criminal contempt of the court:
- Publication in words may be spoken or written, or through signs, or visible representations, of any matter; or
- Any other act whatsoever which—
- Scandalizes or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
- Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the judicial proceeding; or
- Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice.
An advocate cast derogatory attack on the judge of the High Court and he sought a stay for further arguments in an election petition that was filed and also sought for the transfer of election petitions. The act of the advocate was willful and derogatory. The Court held that it was an attempt to intimidate the Judge of the High Court and cause an interface in the conduct of a fair trial [iii].
Punishment for contempt
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes the punishment that can be imposed when a person is found to be guilty of contempt. The Supreme Court has the power to punish the contemnor and it can award simple imprisonment for six months or with a fine of up to Rs. 2000 or with both.
If the Court considers that a fine, as mentioned hereinabove, will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
Punishment in case of a Company
In case a company is deemed to be guilty of contempt:
Whosoever at the time when contempt was commissioned:
- Was in charge of, and
- Was responsible to
The company for the conduct of the business of the company will be deemed to be guilty of contempt along with the company itself. Every such person may be detained in civil prison for such contempt as a punishment. However, if such a person proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission, he shall not be held guilty.
Section 12(1) of this Act states that a person who alleged with the Contempt of Court can be punished with simple imprisonment and that may extend to 6 months, or with a fine extending to Rs. 2,000 or with both.
An accused may be discharged from the punishment given to him for contempt if he makes an apology and the court finds it satisfactory. The court cannot impose a sentence for Contempt of Court over what is prescribed under the given section of this Act either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
Remedies against an order of Punishment
Section 13 has been added in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 [iv] and the provision says that contempt of court cannot be punished under certain circumstances or certain cases. Section 13(a) of the Amendment Act, 2006 provides that no Court shall punish for Contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the Contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tend to substantially interfere with the due course of Justice.
Further, according to Section 13(b) of the Act, the court may consider the defense given by the accused on the justification of truth if it finds that the act is done for public welfare and the request for invoking that defense is bona fide.
Important judgments
- Two newspaper editors from the newspapers the Indian Express and Times of India were charged by the Court for contempt of the Court. The editors of these newspapers criticized the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Additional District Magistrate v. S. S. Shukla Etc. [v], whereinthe Supreme Court refused to protect the right to habeas corpus during the emergency period. The contempt case against the editors was initiated by Chief Justice (CJ) M.H. Beg but was dropped after the two other judges opined that no contempt was committed.
- Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors. [vi]–Bal Thackeray who is the leader of Shiv Sena, in 1997, was convicted by the High Court of Bombay for contempt of court after he accused a judge of corruption in a public speech. However, in 2004, the Supreme Court set aside his conviction on appeal.
- In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra v. Unknown [vii]-The Supreme Court said that contempt jurisdiction of the superior court is not based on law, but it is inherent in the court because it is a court of record. The power to punish for contempt is with the Supreme Court and High Courts as the courts are the court of record under the Constitution.
- Harijai Singh & Anr v. Vijay Kumar [viii]– The Court clarified that the Editor and Publisher are liable for illegal and false matters which are published in their newspaper. No slightest inquiry or a simple verification of the alleged statement was done by them about the grant of Petrol outlets to the two sons of a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, out of discretionary quota, which is found to be patently false would have revealed the truth. The Court added that even the ordinary care was not resorted to by the condemners in publishing such false news items. It held that it cannot be regarded as a public service, but a disservice to the public by misleading them with false news.
The existing provisions are not very satisfactory and there exists difficulty as the contempt powers overlap under the Contempt of Courts Act, and contempt powers are also provisioned under the Constitution to the Supreme Court and High Courts. There are many complications with the interpretation of the provisions as there are no set guidelines based on which an act could be judged. Hence, this gives room for confusion. Contempt of Court if seen from the perspective of the judges and higher judicial officials seems good but if it comes to the perspective of common people it turns out to be a confusing concept as there is no set parameter to decide what is an intentional act and what is not.
[i] Baradakanta Dixit v. Bhimsen Dixit, 1972, AIR 1972 SC 446
[ii] State of Bihar v. Bihar M.S.E.S.K.K Mahasangh, AIR 2005 SC 1605
[iii] Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 5332(NCE) of 1993
[iv] After the amendment in 2006
[v] AIR 1976 SC 1207
[vi] (1988) 3 SCC 167]
[vii] (1995) 2 SCC 584
[viii] 1997 AIR (SC) 73
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us