INTRODUCTION

Contempt of court is any behavior or wrongdoing that conflicts with or challenges

the authority, integrity, and superiority of the court1. These acts might include failure to
comply with requests, witness tampering, withholding evidence, interruption of proceedings,
or defying a court order2. 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 of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being

disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior
that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court. A similar attitude
towards a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress.

There are broadly two categories of contempt: being disrespectful to legal authorities in the
courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order. Contempt proceedings are especially
used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. In some jurisdictions, the refusal to
respond to subpoena, to testify, to fulfill the obligations of a juror, or to provide certain
information can constitute contempt of the court.

When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an 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, called "found" or "held" in contempt. That is the
judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a
court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior,
or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to
jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found
guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges
in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt
than judges in civil law systems.

1
Oxforddictionaries.com
2
Legaldictionary.com

1
Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the
functioning of the court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person
committing contempt of court3. The person is usually let out upon his or her agreement to
fulfill the wishes of the court. Civil contempt can involve acts of omission. The judge will
make use of warnings in most situations that may lead to a person being charged with
contempt. It is relatively rare that a person is charged for contempt without first receiving at
least one warning from the judge. Constructive contempt, also called consequential contempt,
is when a person fails to fulfill the will of the court as it applies to outside obligations of the
person. In most cases, constructive contempt is considered to be in the realm of civil
contempt due to its passive nature.

Indirect contempt is something that is associated with civil and constructive contempt and
involves a failure to follow court orders. Criminal contempt includes anything that could be
called a disturbance, such as repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned
evidence, or harassment of any other party in the courtroom.] Direct contempt is an
unacceptable act in the presence of the judge (in facie curiae), and generally begins with a
warning, and may be accompanied by an immediate imposition of punishment. Yawning in
some cases can be considered contempt of court.

Contempt of court has a significant impact on journalism in the form of restrictions on court
reporting which are set out in statute in the UK.

India contempt of court is of two types:

1. 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.

2. 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

3
Hill G.(2008) contempt of court

2
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.
(a) 'High Court' means the high court for a state or a union territory and includes the court of
the judicial commissioner in any union territory.
Object.

The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of law. If by
contentious words or writings the common man is led to lose his respect for the judiciary,
then the confidence reposed in the courts is rudely shaken and the offender needs to be
punished. In essence of law of contempt is the protector of the seat of justice more than the
person sitting of the judge sitting in that seat.

3
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

IN INDIA

The present law relating to contempt of Court is however, based on the English law
concept. the British courts from the earliest legal history assumed the power of contempt of
court against those who obstructed the administration of justice .

In England, the Courts of Record have inherent powers to punish the contempt itself and
also the Court subordinate to it since the advent of judicial system. The Superior Court being
court of Record has inherent power to punish contempt of itself and courts subordinate to it.
Thus the contempt power of the Superior Court does not base on any statutory enactment but
on the common law principle that the concept is inherent in every court of record.

The contempt of law introduced in British India by setting up of the Court of Record
through a charter of 1687 issued by the East India company for the establishment of Mayor's
Court at Madras. Thereafter charter of 1726 occupied and important places in the
development of the administration of justice in India. Before 1726, there was no uniform
judicial system in all three Presidency towns, for example Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. The
Mayor court was reconstituted in 1753 and thereafter also, it remained the court of Record
having power to punish for contempt of Court. Even prior to it, when after 1704, the court of
Admiralty ceased to sit regularly appeals from the Mayor's Court lay to the governor in
Council. The admiralty court and the governor in Council may also be taken as Court of
record as they heard appeals from the Mayors Court of record.

In 1774, the Calcutta Mayor's Court was replaced by Supreme Court established under
the charge for granted in 1774 in 1st year and software regulating act 1773 in the Madras and
Bombay High Court continued till 1797 when they were superseded by the recorders court.
watch a court of record and it has power to punish for content there after the British
Parliament passes and act in 1893 The recorders court was a court of record and as such it
had power to punish contempt.

4
 The Indian High Courts Act, 1861 replaced the Supreme Courts of Calcutta and Madras by
unification of Company's Court and Crowns Courts. The High Court was a Court of record,
had a power to punish for its Contempt.

The first Contempt of Court Act was enacted in the year 1926 which was repealed and
replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act of 1952 made some notable changes,
the Act empowered the court of Judicial commissioner to punish the Contempt of court
subordinate to it. It was given to Jurisdiction to inquire into or try a Contempt of itself or any
Court subordinate to it.
However, the Contempt of Court Act, 1952 was not satisfactory as there were certain
defects, for example., The definition of Contempt of Court and defenses available to
contemner etc. not given.
There was no provision as to defenses of innocent Publication, fair and accurate report of
judicial proceedings, fair criticism of judicial decisions etc. Besides these defects, even the
Act did not contain any provision as to Contempt liability of the Judges and other persons
acting Judicially. The Act did not contain any provision to the procedure to be followed in the
Contempt proceeding and as to appeal in contempt cases. The above defects in the Act
compelled the Government to examine the existing Contempt law and to remove out the
defects therein. Accordingly on 1st April, 1960 a bill was introduced in Lok Sabha by Shri
Bibhuti Bhushan Dasgupta who amend the law relating to Contempt of Courts. After
considering the Bill, the Government realized need to Reform the law relating to Contempt of
Court, and Committee was set up by the Government under the Chairmanship of Shri H.N.
Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India in July 1961. The entire law on the Contempt
of Court was scrutinized by the Committee and then the Committee submitted its report on
28 February 1963 to Lok Sabha. The Bill was then referred to the joint select committee of
the parliament. The Committee submitted its report on 20 February 1970. The Bill was
substantially altered in the light of the said effect and thereafter, it enacted as the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. This act came into force on 24 December 1971 and repealed replaced
the earlier Contempt of Court Act, 1952.

The provisions of this Act extends to the whole India, provided that it shall not
apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, except to the extent to which the provisions of this

5
Act relate to the content of Supreme Court. This Act is not exhaustive code Section 22 of the
Act provides that the provisions of this act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law relating to the Contempt of Courts. In this Act the definition of
term, "Contempt of Court" is along with important defenses. The Act makes provisions in
respect of liability of the Judges, Magistrates and other persons acting Judicially. It makes
elaborate provisions in respect of the procedures to be followed in the Contempt proceeding
and also in respect of the Appeal.

6
 LAWS RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

In case of india, section 2(a) of the contempt of court act of 1971defines contempt of
court as civil or criminal contempt ,it is generally felt that the existing law relating to
contempt is somewhat certain,undefined and to a extent unsatisfactory.Therefore it was
considered advisable to have the entire law on a subject scrutinized bu a special
committee.Therefore a committee was set up in 1961 under chairmanship of H N SANYAL
,then solicitor general of india.It made an examination of the laws and problems relating to
contempt of court in india and various other countries.the recommendations made gave
importace to freedom of speechand need for safeguarding status and dignity of courts and
interests of administration of justice.

A case of contempt of C K DAPHTARY VS O P GUTA4,the respondent circulated

and published a booklet ascribing bias and dishonesty to justice shah.

Justice C K daphtary believed that the booklet is scandalising judges who participated in the
decision and brought contempt to the highest court in india.

For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which
dealt with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the
Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt.
Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to
punish contempt of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under
Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a). Contempt of Court position under
Indian Constitution are as following-
Art. 129 :Supreme Court to be a court of record.— The Supreme 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.
Art.215: High Courts to be courts of record.—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.

4
CK DAPHTARY VS UOI

7
• Art.144:Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.—All
authorities, civil and judicial, in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. •
Art.141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.— The law
declared by the Supreme
Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of
India.

• Art.142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to

discovery, etc.— (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass
such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause
or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be
enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or
under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in
such manner as the President may by order prescribe. • Art.261. (1) Full faith and
credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of the Union and of every State
.

• Innocent publication and distribution of matter - not contempt (Sec.3)

• Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding - not contempt (Sec 4)

• Fair criticism of judicial act - not contempt(Sec.5) • Complaint against

presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt- in respect of any statement
made by him in good faith (Sec.6) Publication of information relating to proceedings in
chambers or in camera - not contempt except in certain cases (Sec 7
)

• Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt

(Sec 9.)- Due regard to Constitutional Provisions • Power of High
Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts - Every High Court shall have and
exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same
procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and
exercises in respect of contempt of itself :

8
• Provided 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.(45 of 1860) [Sec.
10]
The Limitation period for actions of contempt has been discussed under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 and is a period of one year from the date on which the
contempt is alleged to have been committed .

PUNISHMENT

(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.
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
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 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 the 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 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.

9
(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 provided that the contempt has
been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of, any director, manger, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,
manager , secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the be 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.

10
 CONTEMPT OF COURT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
CANADA

In Canada, contempt of court is an exception to the general principle that all criminal
offences are set out in the federal Criminal Code. Contempt of court and contempt of
Parliamentare the only remaining common law offences in Canada5.

Contempt of court includes the following behaviors:

 Failing to maintain a respectful attitude, failing to remain silent or failing to refrain from
showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding
 Refusing or neglecting to obey a subpoena
 Willfully disobeying a process or order of the court
 Interfering with the orderly administration of justice or impairing the authority or dignity
of the court
 An officer of the court failing to perform his or her duties
 A sheriff or bailiff not executing a writ of the court forthwith or not making a return
thereof.
HONG KONG

Judges from the Court of Final Appeal, High Court, District Court along with members from
the various tribunals and Coroner's Court all have the power to impose immediate
punishments for contempt in the face of the court, derived from legislation or
through common law:

 Insult a judge or justice, witness or officers of the court

 Interrupts the proceedings of the court
 Interfere with the course of justice
 Misbehaves in court (e.g., use of mobile phone or recording devices without permission)
 Juror who leaves without permission of the court during proceedings
 Disobeying a judgment or court order
 Breach of undertaking
 Breach of a duty imposed upon a solicitor by rules of court

5
A COMPENDIUM OF LAW AND JUDGES

11
The use of insulting or threatening language in the magistrates' courts or against a magistrate
is in breach of section 99 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227) which states the magistrate
can 'summarily sentence the offender to a fine at level 3 and to imprisonment for 6 months.'

In addition, certain appeal boards are given the statutory authority for contempt by them (e.g.,
Residential Care Home, Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation, Air Pollution Control, etc.).
For contempt in front of these boards, the chairperson will certify the act of contempt to
the Court of First Instance who will then proceed with a hearing and determine the
punishment.

US

Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then
the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then
punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed
unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the
custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the
disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the
sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus
conventional due process is not required. In federal and most state courts, the burden of
proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence, a lower standard than in criminal
cases.6

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury
does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order,
rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of,
or on behalf of, the United States.'" This stance is not universally agreed with by other areas
of the legal world, and there have been many calls to have contempt cases to be tried by jury,
rather than by judge, as a potential conflict of interest rising from a judge both accusing and
sentencing the defendant. At least one Supreme Court Justice has made calls for jury trials to
replace judge trials on contempt cases.7
UK

The maximum penalty for criminal contempt under the 1981 Act is committal to prison for
two years.

6
JAMES FISCHER (2010 – 12-7) LEXIS NEXIS ISBN
7
US VS BARNETT 376 US 381

12
Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge or magistrates while holding
the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be
prosecuted as "direct" contempt. The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person
in contempt by describing the behavior observed on the record. Direct contempt is distinctly
different from indirect contempt, wherein another individual may file papers alleging
contempt against a person who has willfully violated a lawful court order.

13
 CASE LAWS

Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors.– In this case, the
Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 that defines the term civil contempt and held that the term ‘Willful’ under Section 2(b)
means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific
intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the
law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the
law.

Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju & Anr.– In this case, the High Court of Karnataka
observed that the orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in
appeal/revision. It was further observed that once litigants give an undertaking to a Court,
they should comply with it in all circumstances, the only exceptions being fraud or statutory
bar. They cannot break an undertaking with impunity and then attempt to justify it. The
breach of solemn undertaking given to a Court is a serious matter and will have to be dealt
with seriously.

MOHD. ASLAM OBHURE v. UNION OF INDIA &STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND ORS.-
Wilful disobedience of order of Court-Babri Masjid CaseUndertaking given by Chief
Minister of a State both in his personal capacity and on behalf Of his Government- Flagrant
breach of undertaking- Personal element shown in act of disobedience of order of Courts-
Reasonable steps not taken to prevent violation of order of court-Chief Minister of the State
convicted of an offence: of Contempt of Courts- Sentence of imprisonment of one day with
fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed.

SHRI SANJIV DATTA, DEPUTY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF INFORMATION &

BROADCASTING -
Suo moto contempt notice issued to a public servant and his advocates- Affidavit filed in the
Supreme Court containing allegations against the Court- Allegations made with intention of
casting aspersions on the Court and attributing motives to it- Accusing the Court of making
mockery of established policy of Government of India by permitting a foreign agency to
undertake broadcasting from India against national interest thereby undermining sovereignty
of the nation-Unconditional apology of public servant not accepted-Allegations made by the
contemnor were intentional- Made with full knowledge of its grave implications and

14
therefore has potentiality of mischief-If not curbed firmly, may assume proportion grave
enough to sabotage the rule of law. Unconditional apology of advocates- Accepted for want
of knowledge of allegations.

Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors-

In this case also the Supreme Court once again declared that the powers of contempt are
inherent in nature and the provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said preexisting
situation.That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition to and not
in derogation of
Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the said
two Articles.
Here it was additionally held by the Apex Court that the High Court cannot create or assume
power to inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

- THE COMMISSIONER, AGRA & Ors.Vs.ROHTAS SINGH & ORS-

Contempt of court- Commission of- By Government officials- Appearance of Law Officers
to defend Government officials against whom notices for contempt of court were issued for
disobedience of order of Court. Held : State Government can authorise any of its Law
Officers to appear and defend such Government Officials- High Court not justified in striking
down Government Order which provided for a panel of Advocates for defending Government
Officials in contempt petitions-High Court cannot also give general directions that the
litigation expenses in contempt proceedings would be borne not by the Government but by
the Government Officials- However, in certain situations Advocate General may decline to
appear for an alleged contemnor who is a Government Official-Where the conduct of the
Government official is contumacious, the court can direct him to pay costs personally.
.
Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. V.
Chunilal Nanda & Ors.-

Employee-Suspension-Enquiry Proceedings-Challenge to- Single Judge of High Court

ordered de novo enquiry- Delay in completion of enquiry-Filing of contempt petition by the
employee-Single Judge of the High Court directing the employer- Bank to reinstate the

15
suspended employee and to pay arrears of salary-Division Bench of the High Court dismissed
the Letters Patent Appeal and also application for condonation of delay.
On appeal, Held: Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt Act lies only against the order of
High Court imposing punishment for contempt-In a contempt proceeding, it is not
appropriate to decide any issue on merits-Single Judge of the High Court erred in issuing
directions for reinstating the employee and payment of arrears in a contempt proceeding- The
order of Single Judge was appealable in Terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent-Moreover,
there was no disobedience/breach/negligence on the part of the employer to provoke the
Court to issue such directionsHence set aside- Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136.

In yet another incident though no case was filed in it,JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
was summouned by the supreme court of India for contempt of court.He was summoned on
17th October 2016 for insinuating that the SC has “grievously erred” in not imposing death
penalty to the accused in the Soumya rape –murder case.The court asked JUSTICE KATJU
to come in person and debate over his facebook post over the fundamental flaws in the
verdict.A suo moto cognizance was taken by the supreme court of India.JUSTICE KATJU’S
action was contemptuous to the order of the court therefore ,he was ought to be summouned
by the court for its contempt.

16