Contempt of court is the offense in law of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court order and court officers in behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court. Where a court finds that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority. An act of contempt of court results from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings by behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. The judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for the accused who is found guilty of contempt of court. There are two categories of contempt namely disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order.
LAW GOVERING CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA
Article 215 and Article 129 of the Constitution of India declares High Courts and the Supreme Court respectively to be courts of record and that they shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Therefore the Constitution itself extends the power to High Courts and the Supreme Court to punish for their contempt. The Legislature also has enacted The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which deals with the law governing the contempt of courts. Apart from this the legislature has extended the power to punish for contempt to various tribunals and quasi judicial bodies under the law governing their functioning.
TYPES OF CONTEMPT
Depending on the nature of the case in India, Contempt of Court is of two types:
1. Civil Contempt
Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states Civil Contempt as willful disobedience to the order, decree, direction, any judgment or writ of the Court by any person or willfully breach of undertakings by a person given to a Court. Since Civil Contempt deprives a party of the benefit for which the order was made so these are the offences essential of private nature. In other words, a person who is entitled to get the benefit of the court order, this wrong is generally done to this person.
2. Criminal Contempt
According to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt is Defined as (i) the publication of any matter by words, spoken or written, or by gesture, or by signs, or by visible representation or (ii) doing of any act which includes:
a) Scandalize or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or
b) Biasness, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any type of Judicial proceedings, or
c) obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of justice in any manner.
1. What Constitutes Contempt
Disobedience of any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or an undertaking given to the court.
There should be disobedience of a valid order to constitute contempt of court. An order includes all kinds of judgments, orders- final, preliminary, ex-parte, and contempt order. Disobedience of a decree, direction, writ or other process of a court, or an undertaking given to the court, will also amount to contempt of court.
Whereas in the case of the breach of undertaking as contempt of court is concerned, the reason behind this is that the contempter obtains a beneficial order for himself from the court, by giving an undertaking and if he fails to honor the undertaking at a later stage, he plays a serious fraud on the court as well as the opposite party and thereby interferes with the administration of justice by bringing the court into disrespect.
However such a disobedience or breach must be willful, deliberate and intentional to constitute contempt. In order to exercise its power to punish the contemnor the court has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contempter has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court’s order. No court including contempt court is entitled to take trivialities and technicalities into account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is taken. Where the order has been substantially complied with and a reasonable explanation has been provided for the delay in compliance with the order, the contempt will not lie as the violation is not willful and deliberate.
In Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr vs Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai (2008) SC it was held by the Supreme Court that following conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed a civil contempt-
- there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or an undertaking given to a Court);
- there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking given to a Court); and
- such disobedience of judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking) must be wilful.
2. Scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court.
Scandalizing here means that it is an attack on individual judges in particular or the court as a whole, with or without reference to a particular case, by casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or the ability of the judges. Such conduct is punished as criminal contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the minds of common people and thereby reduces confidence of the people in the judiciary.
In Pritam Pal vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh 1992 AIR 904, the appellant had moved false and frivolous contempt proceeding against the judges who previously heard his matter. The supreme court while dismissing his appeal and punishing the appellant for 2 months observed “These calculated contemptuous remarks and the sweeping allegations which we have extracted above are derogatory in character not only to the dignity of the learned Judges casting aspersions on their conduct in the discharge of their judicial functions but also wounds the dignity of the Court. It is highly painful to note that the appellant/contemner who is none other than an Advocate practising in the same highest Court of the state after having failed to wrench a decision in his favour in his own cause which he prosecuted as party in person has escalatingly scandalised the Court by making libellous allegations which are scurrilous, highly offensive, vicious, intimidatory, malacious and beyond condonable limit. Even a cursory reading of the remarks made against the learned Judge of the High Court unambiguously show that the potentially prejudicial utterances and the outrageous allegations rumbustiously and invectively made by the contemner with malacious design of attempting to impair the administration of justice have struck a blow on the judiciary and also seriously sullied the image, dignity and high esteem which the office of the Judge of the High Court carries with it and thus impeded the course of justice by fouling its source and steam. In our opinion, the incident in question is a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of the Rule of Law. To preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the Court, though painful, to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.”
Prejudice or interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
Any publication which prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding would amount to criminal contempt of court. Interference during the proceeding of the case causes interruption to administration of justice. Using mobile phones or making noise in the court room can amount to interference in judicial proceedings. Also media trial or trial by newspaper is not considered proper because it affects the fairness of trial and is likely to cause interference with the administration of justice.
3. Prejudice or interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
Any publication which prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding would amount to criminal contempt of court. Interference during the proceeding of the case causes interruption to administration of justice. Using mobile phones or making noise in the court room can amount to interference in judicial proceedings. Also media trial or trial by newspaper is not considered proper because it affects the fairness of trial and is likely to cause interference with the administration of justice.
In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors (1995) 3 SCC 757 the Supreme Court held “The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message perculates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice “
4. Interference/Obstruction with the administration of justice in any other manner
Every person in India is entitled to approach the court in order to secure justice and for the redressal of their grievances and the court has to decide dispute between the parties as per law and equity. Any conduct which tends to prevent or actually prevents a party to approach the court, amounts to criminal contempt of court, for eg. writing a threatening letter to litigating party or his counsel preventing him from attending the court, writing a letter to the judge or approaching him in order to influence his judicial conscience or approaching a counsel for undue favor are all examples of interference with administration of justice and are contempt of court.
In Court On Its Own Motion vs Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain (2013) DHC the accused first made false depositions I the affidavits and when he was caught he initially and unabashedly denied allegations of misconduct; later, he somersaulted from his position, admitted guilt and begged mercy. The court observed that this behaviour does not inspire any confidence in the Court that his latter apology is bona fide or genuine rather he should have admitted his guilt in the very first instance, and not allowed the proceedings to go further to framing of charges. While giving a punishment for one month imprisonment the court observed that “a litigant’s proclivity to depose falsely and contumaciously and then, on being caught, seek forgiveness, has to be closely scrutinized, in the context of his plea for leniency in a criminal contempt action. Whether the contrition is bona fide, and not merely a feint to escape penalty is a dilemma that the Courts would resolve, looking at the overall conduct of the individual”
5. Publication of the above matters.
If publication of anything which scandalizes or lowers or tends to scandalize or lower the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with administration of justice, it will amount to criminal contempt of the court. The word publication is given a very wide ambit and includes words spoken or written, publication in print or electronic media, gestures etc.
In Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1the supreme court while sentencing imprisonment to a sitting high court judge observed that “open denouncement in public, baseless/unsubstantiated allegations and extremely disparaging letters to constitutional functionaries and illegal orders passed by contemnor Judge (Justice C.S. Karnan) against about 33 former and sitting Judges (named) of Supreme Court and High Court. His ridicule of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court remained unabated. Against 7 Judges of present Bench, he ordered (a) initiation of criminal cases, (b) restrained them from travelling abroad and (c) sentenced them to 5 yrs’ rigorous imprisonment without following any procedure and in spite of Supreme Court having withdrawn all his powers. Contemnor Judge could not substantiate even a single allegation despite repeated opportunities given for the same. Contemnor Judge shielded himself from actions, by trumpeting his position, as belonging to an underprivileged caste. By assuming the above position, he levelled obnoxious allegations against innumerable Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of the High Courts, but mostly against Judges of the Madras High Court, but could not substantiate even one allegation. It was held that contemnor sitting Judge is liable to be punished for contempt for his unsavoury actions and behaviour. His actions constitute contempt of Supreme Court, and of the judiciary of the grossest and gravest nature. Hence, contemnor sitting Judge is convicted for contempt of court and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment w.e.f. 9-5-2017”
Period of Limitation
Section 20 deals with period of limitation for initiating contempt proceeding. Section 20 provides that no court shall initiate contempt proceedings either on its own notions or otherwise after the expiry of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. The period of limitation is applicable both in civil as well as criminal contempt. Contempt proceedings can be initiated either by filing an application or by the court itself suo moto. In both the cases, contempt proceedings must be initiated within one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed.
CONCLUSION
Any act that hampers the smooth functioning of judiciary and restrains flow of justice can be considered as contempt of court. It is not that the justice has to be completely deprived rather mere attempt or tendency to deprive the smooth flow of justice is punishable as contempt. Putting false and derogatory remarks upon the judicial officers and judges thereby putting a doubt in the minds of general public hampers the smooth functioning of courts and in disseminating justice. However genuine criticism and accusations cannot form part of contempt and therefore judges cannot use the contempt jurisdiction for upholding their own dignity. Therefore public is open to strict comments and accusations as long as made with bonafide diligence and doesn’t interfere in the process of imparting justice.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
this article provides a clear explanation of the different types of contempt of court and what constitutes contempt in India. it’s helpful for anyone who wants to understand the legal implications of disobeying a court order or showing disrespect to the court.