Lecture on Contempt of Court

7/27/2019 Lecture on Contempt of Court

1/30

CONTEMPT OF COURT

This lecture covers:

1. Contempt of Court: Meaning and Definition.

2. Kinds or Categories of Contempt of Court.

3. Contempt Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, High Court and Subordinate Court.

4. Contempt by Lawyers, Judges, State and Corporate Bodies.

5. Punishment for Contempt of Court.

6. Remedies.

7. Defenses; and

8. Cases on Contempt of Court.

1. CONTEMPT OF COURT: MEANING AND

DEFINITION

Meaning: The word 'Contempt' literally means "disobedience or disregard or neglect or

violate". The person, who commits contempt is called 'contemner'. The expression

'Contempt of Court' means "wilful disobedience/disregard towards the Order/ Judgment

of the Court of Law." It is an act or omission, which interferes or tends to interfere with

the administration of justice.

The meaning of the concept, 'Contempt of Court' has been well explained in Corpus Juris

Secondum. The Contempt of Court is disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition tothe authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of

the Court's order. It also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the

Court and the administration of law into disrepute.

According to Halsbury, "Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a

Court or Judge into disrepute or to lower his authority or to interfere with the due course

of justice or the lawful process of the Court is contempt of Court".

Definition: It is very difficult to define the concept of 'Contempt of Court'. However,

many attempts were made to define the concept. Some of them are stated below:

Sir William Blackstine - 'Contempt of Court is a disobedience to the rules, orders, or

process of a Court, or against the King's prerogative.'

Abbott - 'Contempt of Court is disobedience to, or interruption of, the orders or

proceedings of a Court or legislative body'.


2/30


3/30

The main forms of contempt of Courts are insult to Judges, attacks upon them

comments on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to

officers of the Court, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the Court, breach of

duty by officers connected with the Court and scandalising the Judges or the Courts.

The contempt proceedings are always with reference to the administration of justice. In

determining whether or not the act or omission complained of amounts to contempt of

Court, the test, which is applied and should be applied is whether in the circumstances, it

is calculated to obstruct or interfere or tends to obstruct or interfere with the

administration of justice. With this, the contempt of Court means, 'an act or omission

which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of Justice'.

2. KINDS OR CATEGORIES OF CONTEMPT OF

COURTS

As per Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Court may be

classified into -

A) Civil Contempt of Court; and

B) Criminal Contempt of Court.

A) Civil Contempt

Civil Contempts are taken as acts and omissions in procedure involving a private injury

by the disobedience of the judgment, order or other process of the Court.

According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Civil Contempt consists of disobeying the

orders and processes of the Court.

According to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 'Civil Contempt'

means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process

of a Court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. For civil contempt there must

be disobedience to the order, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking given to the Court

and the disobedience or breach must be wilful. To constitute 'civil contempt' both these

elements must be proved. Civil contempt may be taken as a failure to obey the order of

the Court issued for the benefit of the opposite party. The purpose of the proceeding for

the civil contempt is not only to punish the contemner but also to exercise enforcement

and obedience to the order of the Court. It provides an instant and quick remedy to get the

order passed by the Court implemented. It is a sanction to enforce compliance with the


4/30

order of Court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by reason of non-

compliance. Civil Contempt, actually, serves dual purpose -

i. Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct;

and

ii. oercion to compel the contemner to do what the Court requires of him.

To constitute 'Civil Contempt' the following are required to be proved

i. There is disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of

undertaking given to the Court; and

ii. The disobedience or breach is wilful.

For civil contempt it is necessary that order which has been disobeyed must have

been passed by the Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. If the order has been

passed without jurisdiction, it is not binding on the party against which it has been passed

and therefore, the disobedience of such order will not amount to contempt of Court. The

burden to prove that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order lies on the person who

alleges it.

When the Court orders a person to do something or not to do something, it is

incumbent on that party to comply with that order forthwith. The person disobeying the

order of the Court will alone be responsible for the consequence and he cannot be heard

to say that he referred the matter to his higher officer.

The breach of undertaking given to the Court is also taken as contempt, if it is wilful.

The basis for taking the breach of undertaking as contempt of Court is that the contemner

by making a false representation to the Court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails

to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the Court itself and thereby

obstructs the course of justice and brings disrepute to the judicial institution. But the

breach of undertaking recorded or forming part of compromise decree would not amount

to contempt of Court.

For civil contempt, the disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach

of undertaking given to the Court must be wilful. Wilful means the action or state for

which compulsion of ignorance or accident cannot be pleaded as excuse, intentional,

deliberate, due to perversity or self-will. To establish that the disobedience is wilful, it is

not necessary to show that it is contumacious in the sense that there is a direct intention to


5/30

disobey the order; it is sufficient to show that effective administration of justice requires

some penalty for disobedience to the order of the Court, if it is more than casual,

accidental or unintentional.

The essence of the civil contempt is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,

direction, order or writ of a Court, and not mere inaction to give effect to it. The conduct

of the alleged contemner must be wilful showing deliberate and conscious disregard of

the Court's order, or a despising or disdainful attitude towards the verdict of the Court.

If a party who has full knowledge of the order of the Court or is conscious and aware of

the consequences and implications of the Court's order, ignores it or acts in violation of

the Court's order, it must be held that disobedience is wilful.

Whether the disobedience has been wilful or not is an issue to be decided by the

Court, taking into account the facts, the circumstances of the case.

B) Civil Contempt

A criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and

authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an action obstructing the

administration of justice, which leads to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the first Act which defines the term 'Criminal

Contempt'. Section 2(c) of the Act defines it as under:

Section 2(c) - xCriminal 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. 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.

However, the superior courts being courts of record have inherent power not only to

punish for the criminal contempt but also to determine what amounts to criminal

contempt.


6/30

The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act of a person

which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the

authority of the court. The scope of the criminal contempt has been made very wide so as

to empower the court to preserve the majesty of law, which is an indispensable condition

for the rule of law.

To constitute the criminal contempt it is not necessary that the publication or other act

should have actually resulted in scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court but it

is enough that the act is likely to result in scandalizing. Thus, the offence of contempt is

complete by mere attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of justice.

'Scandalize' connotes to speak falsely or maliciously, to bring into reproach, dishonour,

disgrace, to offend the feelings, conscience or propriety of an action. 'Scandalise' also

means to offend moral feelings, and to make a public scandal of, to utter false or

malicious reports of a person's conduct, slander, or to bring shame or discredit or to

disgrace. We can say that the word 'scandalise' means the defamatory, derogatory, false,

malicious, disgraceful statements regarding the persons as Judges.

It is for the Court to decide whether or not the publication or act is likely to

scandalize or lower the authority of the Court or interfere with due course of any judicial

proceeding or administration of justice.

The publication act will be taken as criminal contempt, if it has resulted in

scandalizing the authority of Court or interference with the due course of judicial

proceedings or interfering in the administration of justice in any matter.

The word 'publication' was given very wide meaning. The publication may be by words

(written or spoken) by signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter. But,

in the Act, it is not clear as to whether the publication should be taken to mean

publication to the general public or any kind of publication.

Scandalizing the Court means any hostile criticism of the Judge; any personal

attack on him, unconnected with the office he holds, is dealt with under the ordinary rules

of slander and libel. The criticism can form the basis for committal of contempt of Court

only if it is made against the Judge in the exercise of his judicial function.

The publication, which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due

course of any judicial proceeding is taken as contempt of Court. Whenever the


7/30

publication or any other act unduly influences the result of litigation, it is treated as

criminal contempt of court and is punished therefor.

If the parties to a pending proceeding are abused and vilified and the words are

likely to cause prejudice to the case, it will amount to contempt of Court. The publication

or doing of any other act which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends

to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner is also taken as contempt of

Court.

An advocate is an officer of the Court and hence undue interference with the

advocate in the discharge of his professional functions amounts to contempt of Court.

Any conduct by which course or justice is prevented either by a party or a stranger is a

contempt of Court. Any person who interferes or prevents other person from coming to

the stream of justice is held liable for contempt of Court. The Court must be very careful

in analysing the facts and circumstances of the case for determining whether or not the

action taken by a person amounts to interference with the course of justice.

Witnesses are also integral part of the judicial process and they must have freedom to

perform their duties and so interference with the performance of their duties is taken as

contempt of Court. Abuse of the process of Court calculated to hamper the due course of

a judicial proceedings or the administration of justice amounts to contempt of Court.


8/30

3. CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND

SUBORDINATE COURT

Contempt Jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court:

Articles 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution declare the Supreme Court and

High Courts respectively the Courts of record and have inherent power to punish for

contempt of Court. This power cannot be. taken away by the legislative enactment.

A Court of record has been defined in Corpus Juris Secundum as a Court, where

the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in a parchment for a perpetual memory and

testimony, and which has power to impose fine and imprison for contempt of its

authority; a Court which is bound to keep a record of its proceedings are enrolled in

parchment for a perpetual memory or testimony, which rolls are called records of the

Court, and are of such question; a judicial organised tribunal having attributes and

exercising function independently of the person of the Magistrate designated generally to

hold it and proceeding according to the course of common law; and a Court having a seal.

In addition to that, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides the contempt jurisdiction

of High Court and the Supreme Court.

According to Section 11 of the Act, a High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire

into.or try a contempt of itself or of any Court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is

alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and

whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.

The proviso to section states that no High Court shall take cognizance of a

contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where

such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This proviso

excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court only when the acts come under the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. According to Section 10, every High Court shall have and exercise the

same jurisdiction, powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and

practice, in respect of Contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in

respect of Contempts of itself.

According to Section 14, when it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or

the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed

in its presence or hearing the Court may cause such person to be punished.


9/30

Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 19): An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or

decision of 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.

Powerof Supreme Court and High Court to make rules: According to Section 23 of

the Act, the Supreme Court, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules, not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its

procedure.

Contempt jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court:

In case of the contempt committed in the face of the subordinate court, the

subordinate Court can take immediate action under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code

read with Section 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 345 of

the Criminal Procedure Code lays down the procedure for investigation and punishment

for the offences specified in Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and-228 of the Indian Penal

Code committed in the view or presence of any civil, criminal or revenue Court.

Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the omission to produce document to

public servant by person legally bound to produce it. It provides that whoever, being

legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant as such

intentionally quits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend

to five hundred rupees or with both; or if the document is to be produced or delivered up

to a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months

or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with both. Section 178 of the Indian Penal

Code deals with refusal to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth, when

required so to bind himself for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine which

may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code

deals with the case of refusing to answer a public servant authorized to question. It

provides that whoever being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public

servant and the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with

simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may


10/30

extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code makes

provision for punishing the person for refusing to sign a statement in certain conditions. It

provides that whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him when required to sign

that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that

statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to

three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. Section

228 of the Indian Penal Code deals with intentional insult or interruption to public servant

sitting in judicial proceeding. It provides that whoever intentionally offers any insult or

causes any interruption to any public servant while such public servant is sitting in any

stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term

which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or

with both. Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down summary

procedure for investigation and punishing offenders for the offences specified in Sections

175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It provides that when any such

offence as is described in Sections 175, 178, 180 or 228 of the Indian Penal Code is

committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court

may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may at any time before the rising of

the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and after giving the offender a

reasonable opportunity or showing cause why he should not be punished under this

section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees and, in default

of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month,

unless such fine be sooner paid. The procedure laid down for investigating and

punishing offenders for the offences specified in the aforesaid sections of the Indian

Penal Code is summary. Section 345 applies to the offences specified in the aforesaid

sections of the Indian Penal Code only when they are committed in the view or the

presence of the Court. Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the

procedure in cases where the Court considers that they should not be dealt with under

Section 345, stated above. It provides that if the Court in any case considers that a person

accused of any of the offences referred to in Section 345 and committed in its view or

presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine or that a fine

exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him or such Court is for any


11/30

other reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under Section 345, such

Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused

as herein before provided, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try

the same and may require security to be given for the appearance of such person before

such Magistrate or if sufficient security is not given shall forward such person in custody

to such Magistrate. The Magistrate to whom any case is forwarded under this section

shall proceed to deal with, as far as may be as if it was instituted on police report. Section

351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for appeal against the conviction under

Section 345, stated above. According to Section 351 any person sentenced by any court

other than a High Court under Section 345 may appeal to the Court to which decree or

orders made in such Court are ordinarily appealable.


12/30

4. CONTEMPT BY LAWYERS, JUDGES, STATE AND

CORPORATE BODIES

Contempt by Lawyers: The lawyers are officers of the court. They contest the

cases in the courts for and on behalf of the litigants and thus on account of the nature of

duties discharged by the lawyers and judges they may get into heated dialogues which

may result in contempt of court in some proceedings or otherwise. There are several

cases of the misconduct, which have concluded establishing contempt of court against

advocates in the shape of using insulting language against a judge making scandalous

allegations against a judge.

In the case of In re Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, the Supreme Court has held

that an advocate using intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions on

various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging their judicial

functions would be held guilty of gross contempt of court. In this case the contemner

advocate filed various petitions of contempt against number of judges and Magistrates

including a Judge of Allahabad High Court who dismissed his revision petition. Mrs.

Saroj Bala, ADJ, Lucknow, against whom the complaint of the contemner was that some

advocates have falsely alleged that the contemner and Mrs. Saroj Bala have illicit

relationship. Some other judicial officers made parties were ACJM, Lucknow, Additional

C.J.M., Lucknow, D.J., Lucknow, ADJ, Lucknow, Special Judge, Lucknow. All the

matters of contempt were listed before the Supreme Court on 15th December 1995 when

the following order was passed:

'In all these petitions we find that attack is indecent, wild, intemperate and even

abusive language on the named judges has been made at various places in each one of the

petitions. The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself liberty of using such

aspersions which prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters

and thus, have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice'.

If an advocate uses insulting language against a judge making scandalous

allegations against a judge, suppresses the facts to obtain favourable orders, hurling shoe

at the judge, imputes partiality and bias and unfairness against a judge, advises his client

to disobey the order of the court, attacks the judiciary in a Bar Council election amount to

contempt of court.


13/30

Instances of Contempt:

The following instances are considered as committing of contempt.

a. Advocate using intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions

on various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging

their judicial functions would be held guilty of gross contempt of Court.

b. Communication with the Judge by advocate amounts to contempt of Court

only when it interferes with the administration of justice.

c. Comment by an advocate stating that a common man in the street has lost

confidence in the judiciary amounts to contempt of Court.

d. A private communication of a letter thanking the Judge amounts to

contempt of Court.

e. Publication of a pamphlet by an advocate seeking election to Bar Council

making derogatory remarks about the Court amounts to contempt.

f. Criticising the methods adopted by a Judge amounts to contempt of Court.

g. Making a false endorsement by an advocate is contempt of Court.

h. The advocate who sign application or pleadings containing matter

scandalizing the Court are themselves guilty of contempt of Court.

i. Circulating a letter to various dignitaries in order to undervalue the

confidence in Judicial Authority amounts to contempt.

j. Hurling shoe at the Judge amounts to contempt of Court.

k. Scurrilous attack upon a Judge by an advocate amounts to contempt of

Court.

l. Storming of Court and disruption of judicial proceedings are considered as

the acts of contempt of Court.

m. Criticism of Court in pleadings amounts to contempt of Court.

n. Protest against the Court may amount to contempt of Court.

o. Contemptuous allegations against the presiding Judge in a Court amounts

to contempt.

p. Sending notice to party to withdraw plea taken in written statement by an

advocate is also an act of contempt.

q. To allege that Judge has acted with prejudice, bias and malice in the


14/30

course of his judicial duties in a notice under Section 80 CPC amounts to

professional contempt of Court.

r. A counsel who advises his client to disobey the order of the Court is also

held liable for contempt of Court.

s. If a counsel refuses to answer the questions of the Court he is liable for

contempt of Court.

t. Boycott of Court or strike by advocates amounts to contempt of Court as

the advocates violate their duties not only towards the clients but also towards the

Court.

u. Unfounded allegation of corruption of Judge by an advocate amounts to

contempt of Court.

Contempt by Judges, Magistrates or other persons acting Judicially:

According to Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 a Judge, Magistrate

or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own Court or of

any other Court in the same manner as any other person is liable and the provisions of

this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.

1. If the Judge used indecorous words and indulges in unseemly and indecent

language, then the impressional concept of the seat of justice is attended against

even by its occupant in bringing into disrepute the administration of justice and he

may be held liable for contempt of Court.

2. If the inferior or Subordinate Court does not follow the law laid down by the

Superior Court, it will amount to contempt of Court.

3. A Judge of the Subordinate Court is held liable in' contempt for disobeying

the order of the High Court only when the disobedience is deliberate and wilful.

4. A Judge may be held liable for criminal contempt, if his act or conduct amounts to

scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court or interference with the due

course of any judicial proceeding or interference with administration of

justice in any other manner.

5. If a Judge or Magistrate accepts illegal gratification, it is considered contempt of

Court.

But Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not apply to the Judges of


15/30

the Court of Record, but only to the subordinate judiciaiy. The High Court and Supreme

Court are the Courts of Record and therefore the contempt proceedings are not

maintainable against the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court.

Contempt Liability of State, Corporate Bodies and their Officers:

At present, in India, the State is not immuned from the contempt liability and therefore it

may be held liable for contempt of Court.

1. If an injunction or order is passed against the State or corporate body and it is

found that there has been wilful disobedience thereof apart from the State or the

corporate body, the officer responsible for its implementation will also be liable

for contempt, if it is established that he was the person in charge of the subject

matter to which the injunction or order alleged to have been disobeyed related and

had knowledge of the order.

2. Where an order is passed against an officer, his successor is also bound to obey

the order and in the case of wilful disobedience he may be held liable for

contempt of Court.

3. As regards the liability of the Minister, it may be pointed out that, he may be

liable for contempt in his personal capacity when he violates the law resulting in

contempt of Court. In his official capacity, Minister or .Chief Minister are held

liable when they are party to the case4 for any wilful disobedience of the orders of

the Court.

4. In the case of Corporation, apart from the Corporation, the officer or agent who

acts for Corporation and knowingly disobeys the order of the Court against the

Corporation, will be held liable for contempt even though the officer is not a party

to suit.

5. In the case of a company, apart from the company, the directors and other officers

may also be held liable for contempt even if the order is made against the

company as per the sub sections (4) and (5) of Section 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971.


16/30

5. PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

According to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the following are

the punishments for the contempt of Court.

1. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, 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 two thousand rupees or with

both.

2. Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be

remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

3. Explanation: An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is

qualified or conditional if the " accused makes it bona fide.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no Court

shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub section (1) for any contempt

either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it.

3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of

a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine 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 a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may

think fit.

4. Where the person found guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any undertaking

given to a Court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was

committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the

business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the

contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the

detention in civil prison of each such person:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to

such punishment, if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or

that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

5. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (4), where the contempt of court

referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the


17/30

contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to

any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the

company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be

guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court,

by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

Explanation: For the purpose of sub sections (4) and (5) -

a) 'Company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of

individuals; and

b) 'Director' in relation to a firai, means a partner in the firm.

Contempt not punishable in certain cases:

According to Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, notwithstanding

anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a

sentence under this Act for a contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is

of such nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the

due course of justice.

Limitations for action for contempt:

According to Section 20, no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt

either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the

date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

6. REMEDIES

The remedies available to the contemner against the punishment are as follows:

Apology:

According to provision under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology

being made to the satisfaction of the Court. The Court is not bound to accept the apology,

unless there is real feeling of repentance in the contemner. The contemner cannot be

allowed to get away by simply feeling sorry by way of apology as the earliest way. The

apology should not be tendered with the object to avoid punishment, but it should be

sincere and made in good faith with the real feeling of repentance.

Acceptance of apology depends on factors like attitude of the contemner, gravity of

contumacious conduct, his past record etc. Generally, apology is not accepted from those


18/30

who are found to be indulged in repeated disobedience or from those who persist in

justifying the action rather than express the genuine regret or from those who do not have

real feeling of repentance and blames the circumstances which led to the contempt.

The Court, when it considers that the apology tendered in the Court is not sufficient,, may

say that the apology will be accepted only when it is made to the Court before the public.

The explanation to Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that an

apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if

the accused makes it bona fide.

According to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contemner has

the right of appeal.

1. An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of 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.

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial

Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

2. Pending any appeal, the Appellate Court may order that-

a) The execution of the punishment, or order appealed against be suspended.

b) If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

c) The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant is not purged of his contempt.

3. Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed,

satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also

exercise all or any of the powers conferred by Sub Section (2).

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.

Thus, Section 19 of the Act provides right of only one appeal.

Where an appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge to a

Division Bench, the statutory right of appeal gets exhausted and there is no further right


19/30

of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the remedy

by way of special leave petition under Article 136 of Indian Constitution is still available.

Review:

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not provide any provision to the Court

for review. The order of punishment is amenable to correction only in appeal under

Section 19 of the Act. Proviso to Section 12(1) provides that the accused may be

discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the

satisfaction of the Court.

7. DEFENCES

Defences against Criminal Contempt: Sections 3 to 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971, provide for certain defences against criminal contempt as stated hereunder.

(I) Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt (Section 3):

1. A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has

published (whether by words spoken or written, or by signs or by visible

representation, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere

with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any

civil or criminal proceedings pending at the time of publication, if at the time he

had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.

2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law

for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in

Sub Section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not

pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of

Court.

3. A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court on the ground that he has

distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in Sub

Section (1), if at- the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for

believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid:

Provided that this Sub Section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of


20/30

i. Any publication which is a book or paper printed or published

otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in Section 3 of the Press

and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867).

ii. Any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in

conformity with the rules contained in Section 5 of the said Act.

Explanation: For the purposes of this Section, a judicial proceedings -

a) is said to be pending

(A) In the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or

otherwise.

(B) In the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5

of 1898), or any other

law -

i. Where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the chargesheet or

challan is filed or when the Court issues summons or warrant, as the case may

be, against the accused; and

ii. In any other case, when the Court take cognizance of the matter to which the

proceeding relates, and in the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be

deemed to continue to be pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is

to say, in a case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or

revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or revision is

preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision

has expired.

iii. Which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed to be pending

merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree,

order or sentence passed therein are pending.


21/30

(II) Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not

contempt (Section 4):

Subject to the provision contained in Section 7, a person shall not be guilty of

contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding at any

stage thereof.

(III) Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt (Section 5):

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court for publishing any fair comment

on the merits of any case, which has been heard and finally decided.

(IV) Complaint against Presiding Officers of Subordinate Courts when not

contempt (Section 6):

A person shall not be guilty of contempt in respect of any statement made by him

in good faith concerning the Presiding Officer of any Subordinate Court to* -

a) any other Subordinate Court; or

b) the High Court, to which is subordinate.

Explanation: In this section, 'Subordinate Court' means any Court subordinate to a

High Court.

(V) Publication of information relating to proceeding in Chambers or 'in Camera 9

not contempt except in certain cases (Section 7):

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of

contempt of Court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before

any Court sitting in Chambers or 'in camera' except in the following cases, that is to say -

a) Where the publication is contrary to the proviso of any enactment for the time

being in force.

b) Where the Court, on grounds of public policy or in exercise of any power vested

in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the

proceeding or of information of the description which is published.

c) Where the Court sits in chambers or 'in camera' for reasons connected with public

order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those

proceedings.

d) Where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is

an issue in the proceedings.


22/30

2. Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Sub Section (1) a person shall not be

guilty of contempt of Court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the

whole, or any part, of an order made by a Court sitting in Chamber or 'in camera' unless

the Court had expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public policy, or

for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground ' that

it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise

of any power vested in it.

Contempts not punishable in certain cases (Section 13):

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force; no

Court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of Court unless it is satisfied

that the contempi is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially

to interfere with the due course of justice.

The contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and, therefore, it has to be

exercised in the exceptional cases. To initiate the contempt proceedings, it is not

sufficient that there is a technical contempt of courts. Even though the person has

technically committed contempt, the Court should not punish the contemner, unless there

is a substantial interference with the due course of justice. Section 13 of the Act is based

on the principle that the law does no1 take account of trivialities. If the publication or

other act is merely a defamatory attack on the Judge and it is not calculated tc interfere

with the due administration of justice, it will not be taker as contempt of Court but the

Judge can claim under the ordinal"} remedies for defamation.

In order to constitute criminal contempt, it is not necessary that there should be an actual

interference with the administrator of justice, but it is sufficient if the publication or act

complained of is likely to interfere with the administration of justice. The offence of

contempt is taken as complete by the attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of

justice and purity of the motive of the contemner.


23/30

Defences against Civil Contempt:

The following are the important Defences open to a contemnei in civil contempt.

1. Disobedience or breach was not wilful: For civil contempt the disobedience of the

order, decree, etc. oJ the Court or breach of undertaking given to the Couri must be

wilful. Hence, it would be a defence in the contempt proceedings that the disobedience or

breach has not been wilful.

2. The order has been passed without jurisdiction: If the order disobeyed is proved

to have been passed by the Court without jurisdiction or the undertaking violated is

proved to have been given in a proceeding which was without jurisdiction, the

disobedience or violation would not amount to contempt of Court. Actually order passed

without jurisdiction is void and a void order binds nobody.

The jurisdiction of the Court may be taken to mean the authority, which a Court

has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matter

represented in a formal way for its decision. The limit of the authority is imposed by the

Statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted. If no restriction or

limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.

The decree or order passed by the Court will be a nullity if it has no jurisdiction with the

subject matter of the proceedings or if the organisation of the Court is illegal.

3. Order disobeyed is vague or ambiguous: Vague and

ambiguous orders are the Defences in the contempt orders, which are not specific and

complete, are considered as vague orders. In a contempt proceeding, a person may take

the plea that the terms of the order of injunction are ambiguous. If the direction in the

order of the Court depends on certain other facts and such facts are left undefined by the

order, the order will be taken as ambiguous order and its violation will not amount to the

contempt of Court.

4. No knowledge of Order: A person cannot be held guilty of contempt in infringing

an order of the Court of which he knows nothing. Where an order of status quo is passed

by the Court but the party continues the work prior to receiving the order and also he has

no actual knowledge of the order, he will not be liable for contempt of Court.


24/30

Contempts not punishable in certain cases (Section 13):

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force; no

Court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of Court unless it is satisfied

that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially

to interfere with the due course of justice.

The contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and, therefore, it has to be

exercised in the exceptional cases. To initiate the contempt proceedings, it is not

sufficient that there is a technical contempt of courts. Even though the person has

technically committed contempt, the Court should not punish the contemner, unless there

is a substantial interference with the due course of justice. Section 13 of the Act is based

on the principle that the law does not take account of trivialities. If the publication or

other act is merely a defamatory attack on the Judge and it is not calculated to interfere

with the due administration of justice, it will not be taken as contempt of Court but the

Judge can claim under the ordinary remedies for defamation.

In order to constitute criminal contempt, it is not necessary that there should be an actual

interference with the administration of justice, but it is sufficient if the publication or act

complained of is likely to interfere with the administration of justice. The offence of

contempt is taken as complete by the attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of

justice and purity of the motive of the contemner.

Defences against Civil Contempt:

The following are the important Defences open to a contemner in civil contempt.

1. Disobedience or breach was not wilful: For civil contempt the disobedience of the

order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking given to the Court must be

wilful. Hence, it would be a defence in the contempt proceedings that the disobedience or

breach has not been wilful.

The order has been passed without jurisdiction: If the order disobeyed is proved to

have been passed by the Court without jurisdiction or the undertaking violated is proved

to have been given in a proceeding which was without jurisdiction, the disobedience or

violation would not amount to contempt of Court. Actually order passed without

jurisdiction is void and a void order binds nobody.

The jurisdiction of the Court may be taken to mean the authority, which a Court has to


25/30

decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matter represented in a

formal way for its decision. The limit of the authority is imposed by the Statute, charter

or commission under which the Court is constituted. If no restriction or limit is imposed,

the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.

The decree or order passed by the Court will be a nullity if it has no jurisdiction

with the subject matter of the proceedings or if the organisation of the Court is illegal.

Order disobeyed is vague or ambiguous: Vague and ambiguous orders are the

Defences in the contempt orders, which are not specific and complete, are considered as

vague orders. In a contempt proceeding, a person may take the plea that the terms of the

order of injunction are ambiguous. If the direction in the order of the Court depends on

certain other facts and such facts are left undefined by the order, the order will be taken

as ambiguous order and its violation will not amount to the contempt of Court.

No knowledge of Order: A person cannot be held guilty of contempt in infringing an

order of the Court of which he knows nothing. Where an order of status quo is passed by

the Court but the party continues the work prior to receiving the order and also he has no

actual knowledge of the order, he will not be liable for contempt of Court.

Compliance with the order is impossible: In ci

contempt of Court, it would be a valid defence to s that compliance with order of the

Court was impossib Actually impossibility plea is tested on a case by ca basis and if it is

found that the implementation of f order was not practically possible and it is proved 1

6. Order involves more than one reasonab interpretation: If the Court's order

involves more the one reasonable and rational interpretation and tl respondent

adopts one of them and acts accordingly, 1 cannot be held liable for contempt of Court.

If the: is no doubt and a doubt is sought to be created, the defence will not be allowed.

7. Other Defences not affected (Section 8): Nothin contained in this Act shall

be construed as implying the any other defence which would have been a valid defenc in

any proceedings for contempt of Court has cease to be available merely by reason of the

proviso of thi Act.

8. Act not to imply enlargement of scope ofcontemp

(Section 9): Nothing contained in this Act shall bi construed as implying that any

disobedience, breach publication or other act is punishable as contempt o Court which


26/30

would not be so punishable apart from thi; Act.

8. CASES ON CONTEMPT OF COO

1. E.M.S. Namboodaripad vs. T.N.Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015.

2. Mohammad As I am vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1995 SC 548.

3. In re : Vinay Chandra Mishral, AIR 1995 SC 2348.

4. Sukumar Mukhopadhyay vs. T.D.Karamchandani, 1995 Cr.LJ 1610.

5. J. Vasudevan v. T.R.Dhananjaya, AIR 1996 SC 137.

6. M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others, AIR

1991 SC 1834.

7. Char an Lai Sahu vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1988 SC 107.

8. T. Deen Dayal vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh^ AIR 1997 SC 3451.

9. State of Rajasthan vs. Parkash Chand, AIR 1998 SC 1344.

1. jE.Af.iS. Namboodaripad vs. T.N.Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015:

In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that the freedom of speech and

expression including the press is not absolute and restriction thereon may be imposed by

the State by making law on any of the grounds specified under Article 19(2). Contempt of

Court is one of the grounds specified in Clause (2) of Article 19 and, therefor, the

restriction on freedom of speech and expression may be imposed, if it amounts to

contempt of Court.

In this case the appellant, E.M.S. Namboodaripad who was the Chief Minister of

Kerala at a press conference charged the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and said

that the judges were guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class

prejudices and favoured the rich against the poor. He further said that the judiciary 'works

against workers', peasants and other sections of the working classes. He was held guilty

of contempt of Court. The Court observed:

"Judged from the angle of Courts or administration of justice, there is not a

semblance of doubt that the appellant was guilty of contempt of Court. Whether he

misunderstood the teachings of Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them is not to

much purpose. The likely effect of his words must be seen and they have clearly the

effect of lowering the prestige of Judges and Courts in the eyes of the people. That he did

not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the sentence to be


27/30

imposed on him but cannot save as a justification."

Thus, the Court held that the statements of the Chief Ministe:

E.M.S.Namboodaripad had effects of lowering the prestige of th Judges and Courts in the

eyes of the people and, therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Consequently, the

Court punishe him for the contempt of Court. T.

2. Mohammad Aslant vs. Union of India and other* AIR 1995 SC 548:

In this case relating to protection of Babri Masjid, the Chie Minister Kalyan Singh

of the State of U.P. had given an undertaken to the Supreme Court for protecting the

Babri Masjid in th personal capacity as well as in his official capacity. The Chie Minister

had also given a solemn assurance to the Nationa Integration Council and permitted the

terms of that assurance t< be incorporated as his own undertaking to the Supreme Court

an< allowed an order to be passed on those terms. But the order wa not obeyed. The

Supreme Court observed that he could not bi absolved himself of the responsibility for

the disobedience of tru Order, unless he placed before the Court sufficient material whicl

would justify that he had taken all reasonable steps and precaution: to prevent the

occurrence. Indeed if such reasonable steps hac been taken he could not be faulted merely

because he did no do his best by the standards of others.

In this case there was no explanation at all apart from the fact that the Sadhus had

congregated in that place in large number The Government did give cogent reasons as to

what steps the government took to prevent the constructional equipment frorr getting into

site. And whether any reasonable effort had been made and evidence of that was not

placed before court.

The main question for consideration in this case before the Supreme Court was

whether the undertaking furnished by the Chief Minister was a personal undertaking or

was on behalf oi the State of U.P. The Court observed, it was both.

There is no immunity for any authority of Government if a personal element is shown in

the act of disobedience of order of the court, from the consequence of order of the court.

Even conduct is bound to affect the members of the Bar all over the country. It opined

that in view of it an exemplary punishment has to be meted out to him.


28/30

4. Sukumar Mukhopadhyay vs. T.D.Karamchandani, 1995 Cr.LJ 1610:

In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that if the order is substantially

complied with, the contempt will not lie. Actually the trivialities are ignored. No Court

including the Court of Contempt is entitled to take frivolities and trivialities into account

while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceedings is

taken. It is now settled that trivialities are to be ignored. Trivial means trifling or

inconsiderable. No one should be convicted for trifling and trivial matters.

In this case the contemner was the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) at the

material time. He moved a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging initiation

of the departmental conduct is bound to affect the members of the Bar all over the

country. It opined that in view of it an exemplary punishment has to be meted out to him.

4. Sukumar Mukhopadhyay vs. T.D.Karamchandani, 1995 Cr.LJ 1610:

In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that if the order is substantially

complied with, the contempt will not lie. Actually the trivialities are ignored. No Court

including the Court of Contempt is entitled to take frivolities and trivialities into account

while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceedings is

taken. It is now settled that trivialities are to be ignored. Trivial means trifling or

inconsiderable. No one should be convicted for trifling and trivial matters.

In this case the contemner was the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) at the

material time. He moved a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging initiation

of the departmental proceedings against him. The Court directed the Excise arid Customs

Department to give inspection/supply copies of the documents demanded by the

respondent. The order was as follows:

'The respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with the impugned enquiry dated 11th May

1984 and dated 21st July 1984 after supplying the document asked for by the petitioner.

Respondents shall be at liberty to conclude the enquiry, but no final order will be passed

without the leave of this Court.'

The copy of the order of the High Court was not personally served on the appellant. He

came to learn the gist of the order of the High Court from two office notes. The appellant

passed the following order:


29/30

'I gave permission to allow inspection and/or comply with the Court's orders.'

Thereafter the appellant went to Delhi in connection with his official duty. On

return from Delhi he was intimated that the respondent was verbally requested to take

inspection but he did not do so on account of non-availability of a particular document.

The Court held that the appellant could not be held guilty of contempt because there was

substantial -compliance of the order of the court. The Court made it clear that the

appellant has substantially complied with the Court's order and he could not be held

guilty for contempt on the ground of non-supply of copies of documents.

It was more so when the copies of the documents were also subsequently given to

the respondent, though after the time allowed by the order. The principal and substantial

demand was inspection and that was admittedly allowed within time. Consequently non-

supply of copies of document could not be a ground for holding the appellant to have

deliberately disobeyed the order. In case the appellant intended to disobey the order he

would have not even permitted inspection. By inspection the appellant could copy out the

documents. The Court has observed that no court including the Court of Contempt is

entitled to take frivolities and trivialities

254 Professional Ethics, Accountancy for Lawyers & Bar-Bench Relation into account

while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is

taken to fight their legal battle, ffin such situation mercy is shown, the effect would be

that people would not knock the doors of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score

on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win and the week would

suffer. That would be a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a

fatal blow. The Court cannot be a party to it and it is duty bound to award proper

punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be.

6. M.B.Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others, AIR 1991

SG 1834.

The appellant who is practicing as an advocate had attacked the integrity of the

Sub Judge by saying that he was a contractor of the Municipal Committee, that he was in

collusion with the Dy. Commissioner and he was under his influence while representing

the plaintiff in civil suit and an ad-interim stay was not given, The Subordinate Judge

reported the matter to the District an( Sessions Judge and the latter submitted a report to


30/30

the High Court,

The High Court enquired and in its proceedings, it viewed that the appellant had

brought himself clearly within the ambit of contempt of Court and he was accordingly

found guilty under Section 2(c)(i) of the Act. The appellant tendered an unqualified

apology to the Court and begged for forgiveness. As this is not the first occasion in which

proceedings for contempt of Court had been initiated against the appellant and in that

case also he tendered unqualified apology before the High Court the High Court did not,

therefore accept the apology tendered by the appellant and sentenced him for two months

imprisonment.

The Supreme Court on appeal held that punishing an advocate for contempt of

Court, no doubt, must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the dignity of

Judiciary, it becomes the duty of the Court to punish the contemner. It was held that the

sentence of two months imprisonment is in no way calls for interference. The Court,

hence, confirmed the punishment and dismissed his criminal appeal.

Lecture on Contempt of Court

Documents

Transcript of Lecture on Contempt of Court