• Non – appearance of the counsel in the case is professional misconduct.

For withdrawal
notice to the client be given. G. Sridher & Anr. v. State of A.P. 2005(2) RCR(Cri.) 116
A.P.
• False affidavit by deponent client regarding the age. The advocate has no responsibility.
New Delhi Bar Ass. (Regd.) & Ors. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Govt. of
Delhi, 2004(2) RCR (Cri.) 40 Delhi.
• Advocates Act – State can appoint more than one addl. Advocate Generals of its choice.
This appointment is not constitutional, rather it is executive. M.T. Khan v. Govt. of
A.P., JT 2004(1) (SC) 146 : AIR 2004 SC 2934
• Allegations by the advocate against the Judges in Review petition after dismissal of SLP,
matter referred to the Bar Counsel of India for necessary action. U.O.I. v. Gulshan
Bajwa, JT 2003(8) (SC) 440.
• Duty of advocate – One should not refer a judgment already overruled and that there is
no other judgment by larger bench. Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish Kumar
Ranchhoddas Patel, 2003 Cri.L.J. 3984 Guj.
• Referring wrong arguments or Changing stand at different stages of proceedings is no
offence covering the application of s. 195 Cr. P.C . N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao,
20003 (2) RCR (Cri. ) 424 (SC): AIR 2003 SC 541: 2003 Cri. L.J. 820.
• Review – Order already passed by the Bar Council can be reviewed even after 60 days.
Licence cancelled is restored . JT 2003 (4) (SC) 435. B
• An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business,
rather it is an officer of the court and legal profession is not a trade or business rather it is
a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients within
legally permissible limits. R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR
(Cri) 166 (P&H).
• State Bar council has quasi judicial power and it also perform the role of the prosecutor
and hence, is competent to file appeal being aggrieved person against the judgment of the
Bar council of India. Bar Council of A. P. v Kurapati Satyanarayana, 2003 SCC
(Cri.) 155: AIR 2003 SC 175.
• S. 303 Cr. P.C-Memo of appearance is sufficient in criminal case. Vakalatname is not
necessary like the civil case. Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri)
429(Karnataka).
• Advocate cannot argue his own case as an advocate but he can argue his case while
appearing in person as general public. MCS- Barna v. C.B. Ramanurthy, 2002 (3)
RCR (Cri.) 696 (Karnataka).
• Rs. 8118 received by the counsel on behalf of his client and kept with him. Then
produced forged documents to establish that he has paid the amount. Licence cancelled
permanently. Harish Chander Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002 SCC (Cri,) 294 (SC): AIR 2002
SC 548.
• Advocates Act- Undue adjournments of the case is an abuse of the process and also a
misconduct. Mohd. Khalid v . State of Wst Bangal ,2002 (4) Crimes 160 (SC).
• Professional Misconduct-Running of STD/Photocopier in the name of advocate.
Licence cancelled for 5 year. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Ass. Pathankot, Jt
2001 (9) (SC) 480: AIR 2002 SC 41.
• Third person an on advocate can represent a party without being general power of
attorney of the party with the prior permission of the Court which has to be obtained by
the party and not by the third person. Mathai v. Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge,
1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 1 Kerala 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 373 (SC).
• Merely ownership of taxi in his name of an advocate is not sufficient without his personal
engagement in business. P.K. Sharma v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1999 SC 98.
• Supreme Court Rules for the allotment of the chambers of the advocates, Vinay
Balchandra Joshi v. Registrar General , supreme Court of India, AIR 1999 SC 107.
• The disciplinary committee cannot dealt with the matter of an Advocate who was
treasurer of some society and the allegation was of no-accounting . Bapurao Pkhiddey
v. Suman doudey, JT 1999 (1) (SC) 273 : AIR 1999 SC 916.
• Advocates Act will not be applicable on an advocate during the period of the suspension
of his licence . Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR
1999 SC 902;
• The accused who is an advocate can represent his co-accused in the capacity of the
advocate in a criminal case till the licence of the accused advocate is in existence 2(1997)
CCR 536 : AIR 1980 Orissa 143.
• Action taken by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India is to be
challenged in Supreme court U/S. 38 of the Advocate Act and order 5 of the Supreme
Court rules, 1966. 1997 (2) supreme 294.
• Identification of a person by an advocate of a person in good faith without any personal
benefit is no offence under the Indian Penal code . Mensrea is a must. Balbir Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1994 (3) RCR 486 (P&H): 1994 CC Case 231: 1994 (2) CCI 749:
1995 (1) CC Case 97 HC. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab , 1984 cri. L.J. 421.
• Fees charged by the advocate but suit not field . It amounts to misappropriation of
amount. D.S. Dalal v. State Bank of India , 1993 (2) RRR 116: AIR 1993 SC 1608.
• Misconduct – Appearance of another counsel in the case without obtaining the
permission of the counsel already engaged by the client . it is misconduct on the part or
the advocate appearing afresh. Giri Raj Parshad Sharma v. Rajasthan Uni. 1987 civil
Court Cases 37.
•

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS

ACT, 1971
[ Act No. 70 of 1971 ]

Alongwith
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of

Supreme Court, 1975

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

CONTENTS

1. 1. Short and extent

2. 2. Definitions

3. 3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

4. 4. Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt

5. 5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt

6. 6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt

7. 7. Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not

contempt except in certain cases

8. 8. Other defences not affected

9. 9. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt

10. 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts

 11. 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside

jurisdiction

12. 12. Punishment for contempt of court

13. 13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases

14. 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court

15. 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

16. 16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

17. 17. Procedure after cognizance

18. 18. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches

19. 19. Appeals

20. 20. Limitation for actions for contempt

21. 21. Act not to apply to Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts

22. 22. Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to contempt

23. 23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules

24. 24. Repeal

RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME

COURT, 1975

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

[70 OF 1971, 24-12-1971]

An Act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of courts
and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. 1. Short title and extent

(1) (1) This Act may be called the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2) (2) It extends to the whole of India:

PROVIDED that it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir except to the
extent to which the provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.

2. 2. Definitions
 In this Act,, unless the context otherwise requires—

(a) (a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) (b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;

(c) (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken
or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) (i) scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends

to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the

due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or

tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

(b) (d) “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.

COMMENTS

The civil court while executing a decree against a judgment debtor is not concerned and
bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment and decree is willful. Once a decree has
been passed it is the duty of the court to execute whatever may be the consequence thereof. But
while examining the grievance of the person who has involved the jurisdiction of the court to
initiate a proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before such contemner is held
guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was willful and
intentional.—Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 1994 (6) SCC 332

The court must always be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same
time it will be inadvisable to require compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the
instance of the person proceeded against for contempt.—M.I. Khanday v. A.M. Rather 1994 (4)
SCC 34
 In a government of laws and not of men the executive branch of government bears a
grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial order.—Mohd. Aslam v. UOI 1994 (6)
SCC 442

Where an undertaking is given by a party and accepted by the court and order passed on
the basis of such undertaking, the order in substance amounts to an injunction restraining the
party from acting in breach thereof.—Noorali v. KMM Shetty AIR 1990 SC 464.

Where there is willful breach of undertaking the court has not only the power but in
appropriate cases, the duty to enforce obedience to the terms of the undertaking given to it.—
Kanta Gupta v. VIII Additional District Judge Supp 1 SCC 219

Where a case of willful disobedience is made out the court will not hesitate and will
convict the delinquent officer and so lenience in the attitude of the court should be expected from
the court as a matter of cause merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the
service career of the concerned officer.—Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromani Mondal AIR
1991 SC 281

Unless it is shown that the order of the court about which non compliance is complained
is without jurisdiction or void ab initio the parties to the order are bound to comply with it even
though it may be illegal.—S.M. Kawale v. State of Maharashtra 1994 CrLJ 735

No court including the court of contempt is entitled go take frivolities and trivialities into
account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is
taken.-S. Mukhopadhay v. T.D. Karam Chandani 1995 (75) ELT 39

Liberty of free expression is not to be conferred with a licence to make unfounded,

unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the judges or the courts in relation to judicial
matters.—In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 446

If freedom of expression sub serves public interest cannot gag it or manacle it; but if the
court considered the attack on the Judge or judges successions, offensive, intimidatory or
malicious, beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who
challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.—C. Ranichandran
lyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattchargee 1995 (5) SCC 457

Making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to

scandalizing the court. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial officer/authority by
any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat
to judicial independence and needs to be dealt with the strong arm of law.—U.P. Sales Tax
Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association 1995 (5) SCC 716

The fact that the order appointing the receiver is improperly procured is no justification
for interfering with him since the validity can be challenged by application to the court.—In re
Mukunda Chandra Halder 1994 CrLJ (NOC) 189

Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such a jurisdiction is vested in
the court in order that the majesty of law can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to
be made in the course of justice, the court must take serious view of the same.—Rakesh Kaul v.
Registrar, High Court of J&K 1994 (5) SCC 759

Anyone who makes or attempts 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 court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false
affidavits or making a false statement on oath in courts aim 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 steak.—Dhanjay
Sharma v. State or Haryana 1995 (3) SCC 757

3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

(1) (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
representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere
with, or obstructs, ot tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with
any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time
he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.

(2) (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) (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—
 (i) (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) (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 proceeding—

(b) (b) is said to be pending—

i. i. in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is

instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,

ii. ii. in the case of a criminal proceeding under the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)¹(see Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), or any other law—

(a) (a) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the

charge sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues
summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused,
and

(b) (b) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the
matter to which the proceeding relates, and n 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 has expired:

(c) (c) 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.

COMMENTS

Sec. 3 is in nature of an exception to the categories of “criminal contempt” which fall

under sub-clause (ii) and to certain categories of “criminal contempt” which fall under sub-
clause (iii) of s. 2(c) but not to that category of contempt which falls under sub-clause (i) of s. 2
(c).—Rachpudi S. Rao v. Advocate General AIR 1981 SC 755

It depends upon the subjective state of mind of not knowing of pendency and the
objecting demonstration by the person concerned that he had no reasonable grounds for believing
that any such proceeding was pending.—Pending v. Standard Trimbak Yardi 1975 CrLJ 531
4. Fair and accurate report of Judicial proceeding not contempt

Subject to the provisions 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 or any stage thereof.

COMMENTS

Reading s. 4 with the provision of s. 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is clear
that what is meant by the words “judicial proceedings” is day to day proceeding of the court.
Assuming though not granting that it is capable of a wider construction, it only permits a
publication of “fair and accurate” report of a judicial proceeding.—Subash Chandra v. S.M.
Agarwal 1984 CrLJ 481

Before a party to a litigation may be heard in support of its case, it must punge itself of
the contempt that tends to impede the course of justice by the contempt that has to be punged
should be an admitted or proved contempt and not merely an alleged contempt.—Arun Tandon
v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr.LJ 459

5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt

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.

COMMENTS

Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of
their judgments fair comments even if outspoken but made without maturity or attempting to
impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any
punishment for contempt of court.—In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 4 SCC 446

In a democracy fair criticism of the working of all the organs of State should be welcome
and would in fact promote the interests of democratic functioning. Sec. 5 of the Act evidently
enacted with a view to secure the right of fair criticism provides that a person shall not be guilty
of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of the case which has been
heard and finally decided. This does not mean that the right to commit for any contempt by
scandalizing the court has become obsolete. The question would still be whether the publication
alleged to be offending is by way of fair comment on the merits of the case.—Vincent
Panikulangara v. Gopal Kurup 1982 CrLJ 2094

In the case of issuance of mere notice of contempt, the right of hearing cannot be denied.
Refusing a right of hearing to a party against whom merely a notice for contempt has been issued
is fraught with grave injstice.—Arun Tendan v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr LJ 459

6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him
in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to—
 (a) (a) any other subordinate court, or

(b) (b) the High Court,

to which it is subordinate.

Explanation: In this section, “subordinate court” means any court subordinate to a High Court.

COMMENTS

Unwarranted and defamatory attack upon the character and ability of the Judge made by
the counsel in the application of transfer of proceedings from the said court does not constitute a
mere complaint under s. 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, but clearly constitutes criminal
contempt by scandalizing the court within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.—State of M.P. v. Chandrakant Saraf 1985 CrLJ 1716

7. Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not

contempt except in certain cases

(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) (a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for
the time being in force;

(b) (b) where the court, on ground 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) (c) where the court sits in chambers on in camera for reason connected with
public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to
those proceedings;

(d) (d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention
which is an issue in proceedings.

(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 chambers or in camera, unless the court
has 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.
 COMMENTS

The press reporter and the publisher of newspapers do not have any indefeasible right to
put his own gloss on the statements in court by selecting stray passages out of context which
might have a tendency to convey to the reader to the prejudice of a party to the proceedings a
cause different from what would appear when the statement is read in its own context.—
Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union v. K.M. Mathew 1984 CrLJ 1061

8. Other defences not affected

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any other defence
which would have been a valid defence in any proceedings for contempt of court has ceased to
be available merely by reason of the provisions of this Act.

COMMENTS

If there is specific time limit in the direction, such non compliance cannot be regarded as
willful or deliberate disregard of such direction.—Atmaram Kanosir v. L.K.R. Prasad 1990 Cr
LJ 169

The power to inflict punishment for contempt of court cannot be invalidated on the
ground that law which does not allow plea of truth as a defence is in contravention of Act. 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution—V.M. Kanade v. Madhav Godkari 1990 Cr. LJ 190

While ss. 3 to 7 mentions special acts that are not contempt, s. 8 by implication indicated
that the Act is not exhausted as to what is not contempt.—High Court v. T.K. Subamma 1990 Cr
LJ 1159

An intention to interfere with the administration of justice is not an essential ingredient to

the offence of contempt of court. It is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so
to interfere.—Pritam Pal v. High Court M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

Truth of the allegation when the contemner says that he can prove, cannot be put up as a
defence in charge for contempt of court.—V.M. Kande v. Madhav Gadkari 1990 CrLJ 190
9. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience,
breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be
punishable apart from this Act.

COMMENTS

What s. 9 contemplates is that an act or action which was not contempt of court before
the Act came into force shall not be punishable as contempt of court under the Act.—Harish
Chandra Mishra v. Justice S. Ali Ahmed AIR 1986 Pat 65
 Sec. 9 makes is absolutely clear that it is only such disobedience that is made punishable
as contempt of court which is made specifically punishable under the Act. There is no provision
in the Act like s. 34 or s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of which aiding or abetting
can be punished.—Sham Kant v. Dayana Bai 1989 Cr LJ 2431

10. Power of High Court to punish contempts 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 contempts of courts subordinate
to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:
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).
CONTEMPTS
Where the misconduct complained of falls under Contempt of Courts Act as well as Penal
Code, independent of each other, the accused can be punished for contempt even if he has once
bee punished under s. 228 of the Penal Code for the act committed by him, and the principle of
double jeopardy is in applicable in the case.—Court on its own motion v. Milkhi Ram 1992 Cr
LJ 2130
Power to punish the contemner for itself which is inherent in the court of reward includes
power to dismiss the case for contempt. When it has power to dismiss on merit it has the power
to dismiss for default. Equally as an adjunct or incidental thereto, it has also inherent power to
restore the application dismissed for default.—D. V.K. Kesva Raju v. S.R. Govinda 1990 Cr LJ
299
The corporate veil is being blatantly used as a clock is willfully disobey the orders of the
court. Lifting the corporate veil is imperative to punish improper conduct. It is the requirement
of public interest that the corporate veil must be lifted to find out the person who disobeyed the
order of the court.—yoti Ltd. V. K.K. Bhasin 1987 Cr LJ 1281
11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside
jurisdiction
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.
CONTEMPTS
It is of utmost importance that there has to be a specific order of restraint against a person
from indulging in a particular type of activity, the violation of which can make him liable for
contempt. Where there is no prayer made for restraining the defendant from doing a particular
act, mere status quo will not include such act and one will not be guilty of contempt.—S. Anand
Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kumar 1991 Cr LJ 996
12. Punishment for 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
find 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 tghat 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 be 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.
(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 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 such-sections (4) and (5)—

(a) (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or
other association of individuals; and
(b) (b) “director’, in relation to a firm, means partner in the firm
COMMENTS
Those who have to discharge duty in a court of justice are protected by the law are
shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate interference in the discharge of such
duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officer of the court would
amount to criminal contempt and the court must take serious cognizance of such conduct.—
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2176
In a case where a senior IAS officer after having been found guilty of contempt for
deliberately not implementing the order of the Supreme Court was sentenced to simple
imprisonment for a period of one month, the court observed that, if the order of even the highest
court of the land is allowed to be willfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let
off by remitting the sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in
the country.—J Vasudavan v. T.R. Dhananjaya 1995 (6) SCC 249

The contemner cannot be let off or an apology which is far from sincere, hollow no
remorse, no regret, and merely a device to escape the rigour of the law.—M.B. Sanghi v. High
Court of P&H AIR 1981 SC 1834
An apology is not a weapon of the defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is
it intended to operate as panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly
consciousness of a wrong done, if an injury inflicted and the earnest desire to make such
separation as lies in the wrongdoer’s power.—DDA v. Skipper Construction 1995 (3) SCC 507
It is essential to take strong measures to see that justice becomes available to all, who
would not get it if lawful orders of competent courts are violated which would result in people
with muscle and money power alone being able to settle score on streets.—State of Orissa v.
Bisaya Mohanty 1993 Cr LJ 3311
In the instant case the court held the contemner, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of the
offence of the criminal contempt of the court for having interfered with and obstructed the course
of justice by trying to threaten, over awe and overbear the court by using insulting disrespectful
and threatening language and committed him of the said offence. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Act 129 is sui generis. The jurisdiction to take cognizance by any statute.
Neither the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 nor the Advocates Act, 1961, can be preserved into
service to restrict the said jurisdiction.—Ir re Vinayachandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584
Where the allegation is one of the disobedience of the order of the court where it is not
possible to attribute definite knowledge of order of the court to party proceeded against, the party
shall be exonerated.—M.J. Maulana Hasan Ali v. Amiruddin 1992 Cr LJ 1986
The order of holding a person guilty of having committed contempt of court cannot be
reviewed by the court which is amenable to correction in an appeal under s. 19 of the Act.—
Senior Sub Judge v. R. A. Kawzal 1991 Cr LJ 2432
The Supreme Court being the apex court and a superior court of record has power to
determine its jurisdiction under article 129 of the Constitution and it has jurisdiction to initiate or
entertain proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts.—Delhi Judicial Service Association v.
State of Gujarat 1991 Cr LJ 3086
Where the unconditional apology is offered it has its due reflection on the question of
punishment and it cannot completely absolute contempt.—1990 SCC (Cri) 626
Apology must be such as serving a large purpose, as a deterrent to those who treat the
orders of the court with callous disregard or indifference. The ritualistic and formal apology in
affidavit is not sufficient.—K.P. Isar & Sons (P) Ltd. V. K. Prathydhanan 1992 Cr LJ 2587
13. Contempt not punishable in certain cases

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.

COMMENTS

A willful and deliberate violation of the order of the court must be shown to
interfere with the due course of justice before such conduct can be punishment for
contempt.—Incon (India) Ltd. V. A.L. Rungta 1981 Cr LJ 144

The importance of the section lies in this that by implication it prevents the
court from taking a technical view or a vindictive attitude. Consistent with the
respect and dignity in which the court is held, the court is expected to conduct itself
in a decent and magnanimous fashion.—anisha Mukherjee v. Ashok Chatterjee 1985
Cr LJ 1224

Where the act complained of substantially interferes or tends to interfere with

the board stream of administration of justice that will be punishable in spite of s. 13.
If an act undermines the prestige of the court, it is certainly substantially interfering
with due course of justice. The impairment of the dignity and the authority of the
court is to be exchanged. The purpose of contempt proceeding is to preserve and
maintain the flow of stream of justice in its insulted form and purity.—Laxman Pd.
Agarwal v. K.P. Singh 1991 Cr LJ 2834

14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High
Court

(1) 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 detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the
court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall--
(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is
charged.
(b) Afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;
c) After taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be
offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after
adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and
(d) Make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as
may be just.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person

charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing,
to have the charge against him tried by some judge other than the judge or judges
in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and
the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of
proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the
matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the
Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial
thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person
charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a
direction given under sub-section (2), by a judge other than the judge or judges in
whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall
not be necessary for the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offence
is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed
before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the
case.

(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct that a
person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody
as it may specify:

PROVIDED that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money
as the court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that
the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and
shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the court:

PROVIDED FURTHER that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail
from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his
attendance as aforesaid.

COMMENTS

The fact that the process is to summary does not means that the procedural
requirement, viz. that an opportunity of meeting the charge is denied to the
contemner. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated, depend,
upon the circumstances so long as the gift of the specific allegation is made clear or
otherwise the contemner is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always
necessary to formulate the change is a specific allegation. Despite the objection
that the judge deals with the contempt himself and the contemner has little
opportunity to defend himself there is a residue case where not only it is justifiable
to punish on the spot but it is the only realistic way of dealing with certain offender.

The judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must
be able to take steps to restore as early and quickly as possible.—In re Vinay
Chandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584
 The power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court being courts of
record under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power
and that the jurisdiction vested is a special one and not derived from any other
statute but derived only from arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution.—Pritam Pal
Singh v. High Court of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to

in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own
motion or on a motion made by:-

(a) the Advocate-General. Or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-
General (Inserted by Act 45 of 1976) [or]

`(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such
Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law
Officer.]

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High
Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or
on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory,
by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the
contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation: In this section, the expression “Advocate-General” means—

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the

Solicitor-General’
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the
State or any of the States for which the High Court has been
established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law

Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf.

COMMENTS

The whole object of prescribing procedural modes of taking cognizance in s.

15 is to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court and the Supreme Court being
vested by frivolous complaints of contempt of court. Sec. 15(2) does not restrict the
power of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of a subordinate court
on its own motion although apparently the section does not say so.—Delhi Judicial
Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR SC 2176
 Though the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court
can be regulated by legislation by appropriate Legislature under Entry 77 of List 1
and 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971,
the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court is given a
constitutional foundation by declaring such courts, to be the “courts of records”
under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution and there from the inherent power of
the Supreme Court and High Court cannot be taken away by any legislation short of
constitutional legislations.—Pritam Pal v. High Court 1992 Cr LJ 1269

16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, 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 individual is
liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observation or remarks made
by a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding subordinate court
in an appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate or other person
against the order or judgment of the subordinate court.

COMMENTS

The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control for the court
domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments,
undignified or scathing criticism of Counsel, parties or witnesses. The court has the
inherent power to act truly upon its own convictions on any matter coming before it
for adjudication, but it is a general principal of the highest importance to the proper
administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against
persons or authority whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely
necessary.—A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta 1990 (2) SCC 533

17. Procedure after cognizance

(1) Notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served personally

on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs
otherwise.

(2) The notice shall be accompanied—

(a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of
the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is
founded; and

(b) in case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate

court, by a copy of the reference.
(3) The court may, if it is satisfied that a person charged under section 15 is
likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the
attachment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable.
(4) Every attachment under sub-section (3) shall be effected in the manner
provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (See Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), for the attachment of property in execution of a decree for
payment of a money, and if, after such attachment, the person charged appears
and shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abscond or keep out of the
way to avoid service of the notice, the court shall order the release of his property
from attachment upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit.

(5) Any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in
support of the defence, and the court may determine the matter of the charge
either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be
necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires.

COMMENTS

It is not open to any contemner to take the plea that truth of the allegation is
a justification.—Advocate General v. Rachapudi Subba Rao 1991 Cr LJ 613

The contemner is not entitled to adduce evidence in jurisdiction of his

conduct.—V.M. Kanade v. Mahav Gadkari 1990 Cr LJ 190

The contempt proceedings are not criminal proceeding but are proceedings
of a summary nature and the courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such
proceedings and accordingly extend the normal rules of procedure in contempt
cases so as to act fairly and judiciously.—Vidaya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu
Olympic Association 1991 Cr LJ 2722

18. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches

(1) Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and
determined by a Bench of not less than two judges.

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.

19. Appeals

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the 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 les
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 has not purged 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.
COMMENTS

The right of appeal is available under sub-s. 1 of s. 19 only against any

decision or order of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt. The High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred upon it by
art. 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt when the
High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemner, it does not
exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under art. 215 of the
Constitution.—D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26

Contempt proceedings relate to special jurisdiction, so such power to recall or

reviewed can be exercised by invoking ss. 362 and 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure—State of U.P. v. Baldev 1992 Cr LJ 1251

20. Limitation for actions for contempt

No court shall initiate any proceedings of 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.

COMMENTS

Sec. 20 has no application where the contempt is a continuing wrong.—Firm

Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram AIR 1989 SC 2285

Sec. 20 does not derogate from the power vested in every High Court under
art. 215 of the Constitution.—High Court of Karnataka v. Y.K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ
1159

21. Act not to apply to Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply in relation to contempt of Nyaya

Panchayats or other villages courts, by whatever name known, for the
administration of justice, established under any law.

22. Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to
contempt

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts.
 COMMENTS

The expression “not in derogation of” is intended to mean that substantive

powers of contempt cannot be abrogated by the Act.—High Court of Karnataka v.
Y.K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ 1159

23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules

The Supreme Court or, as may be, any High Court may make rules, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its
procedure.

24. Repeal

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952). Is hereby repealed.

RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF SUPREME

COURT, 1975

GSR 142—In exercise of the powers under section 23 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 read with article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers
enabling it in this behalf, the Supreme Court hereby makes, with the approval of the
President, the following rules:

1. (1) These Rules may be called the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for
Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the fficial
Gazette (Published in the Gazette of India, dtd. 1-2-1975 and came into force from
the date).

PART I

2. (1) Where contempt is committed in view or presence or hearing of the

Court, the contemner may be punished by the Court before which it is committed
either forthwith or on such date as may be appointed by the Court in that behalf.

(2) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that the
contemner shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:

PROVIDED that the contemner may released on bail on such terms as the
Court may direct.

PART II
3. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in rule 2, the Court
may take action:

(a) suo motu, or

(b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, of
(c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt
with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General
4. (a) Every petition under rule 3(b) or (c) shall contain:-

(i) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or

petitioners and of the persons charged;
(ii) nature of the contempt alleged and such material facts, including
the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for
the proper determination of the case;
(iii) if a petition has previously been made by him on the same facts,
the petitioner shall give the details of the petition previously made and shall also
indicate the result thereof;

(b) The petition shall be supported by an affidavit.

(c) Whether the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his

possession or power, he shall file such document or documents or true
copies thereof with the petition.

(d) No court fee shall be payable on the petition, and on any documents
filed in the proceedings.

5. Every petition under rule 3(b) and (c) shall be posted before the Court for
preliminary hearing and for orders as to issue of notice. Upon such hearing, the
Court if satisfied that no prima facie case has been made out for issue of notice,
may dismiss the petition, and, if not so satisfied direct that notice of the petition be
issued to the contemner.

6. (1) Notice to the person charged shall be in Form. I. The person charged
shall, unless otherwise ordered, appear in person before the Court as directed on
the date fixed for hearing of the proceeding, and shall continue toremain present
during hearing till the proceeding is finally disposed of by order of the Court.

(2) When action is instituted on petition, a copy of the petition along with
the annexure and affidavits shall be served upon the person charged.

7. The person charged may file his reply duly supported by an affidavit or
affidavits.

8. No further affidavit or document shall be filed except with the leave of the
Court.

9. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, seven copies of the Paper Book shall
be prepared in the Registry, one for the petitioner, one for the opposite party and
the remaining for the use of the Court. The Paper Book in the case shall be
prepared at the expense of the Central Government and shall consist of the
following documents:-

(i) Petition and affidavits filed by the petitioner.

(ii) A copy of, or a statement relating to, the objectionable matter constituting
the alleged contempt.
(iii) Reply and affidavit of the opposite party.
(iv) Documents filed by the parties.
(v) Any other document which the Registrar may deem fit to include.
10. The Court may direct the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to appear and
assist the Court.

11. (1) The Court may, if it has reason to believe that the person charged is
absconding or is otherwise evading service of notice, or if he fails to appear in
person or to continue to remain present in person in pursuance of the notice, direct
a warrant bailable or non-bailable for his arrest, addressed to one or more police
officers or may order attachment of property. The warrant shall be issued under the
signature of the Registrar. The warrant shall be in Form II and shall be executed, as
far as may be in the manner provided for execution of warrants under the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

(2) The warrant shall be executed by the officer or officers to whom it is

directed, and may also be executed by any other police officer whose name is
endorsed upon the warrant by whom it is directed or endorsed.

(3) Where a warrant is to be executed outside the Union Territory of Delhi,

the Court may instead of directing such warrant to police officer, forward it to the
Magistrate of the District or the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police
of the district within which the person charged is believed to be residing. The
Magistrate or the police office to whom the warrant is forwarded shall endorse his
name thereon, and cause it to be executed.

(4) Every person who is arrested and detained shall be produced before
the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding
the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the
Magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period
without the authority of a Magistrate.

12. The Court may, either suo motu, or on motion made for that purpose,
order the attendance for cross-examination, or a person whose affidavit has been
filed in the matter.

13. The Court may make orders for the purpose of securing the attendance of
any person to be examined as a witness and for discovery of production of any
document.

14. The Court may pass such orders as it thinks fit including orders as to costs
which may be recovered as if the order were a decree of the Court.

15. Save as otherwise provided by the rules contained herein, the provisions
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, shall, so far as may be, apply to proceedings in
relation to proceedings in contempt under this part.
PART III

16. Where a person charged with contempt is adjudged guilty and is

sentenced to suffer imprisonment, a warrant of commitment and detention shall be
made out in Form IV under the signature of the Registrar. Every such warrant shall
remain in force until it is cancelled by order of the Court or until is executed. The
Superintendent of the Jail shall in pursuance of the order receive the person so
adjudged and detain him in custody for the period specified therein, or until further
orders

FORM

NOTICE TO A PERSON CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT

[Rule 6]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Jurisdiction)

Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer a charge of Contempt of

Court by (here briefly state nature of the contempt).

You are hereby required to appear in person (or by Advocate if the Court has
so ordered) before this Court at New Delhi on the_________day of_____200__ at 10.30
o’clock in the forenoon.

You shall attend the Court in person* on the _________day of______200__and

shall continue to attend the Court on all days thereafter to which the case against
you stands adjourned and until final orders are passed on the charge against you.

Herein fail not.

Dated this _______day of ____200__

(SEAL)

REGISTRAR

*To be omitted where the person charged is allowed or ordered to appear by

Advocate.

FORM II

WARRANT OF ARREST

[Rule II]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Jurisdiction)

To
(Name and designation of the person or persons who is or are to execute the
warrant)

Whereas ___________of_____________is charged with committing contempt of

this Court, you are hereby directed to arrest the said______and to produce him
before this Court on the_______day of______200__ at 10.30 o’clock in forenoon.

Herein fil not.

(If the Court has issued a bailable warrant, the following endorsement shall
be made on the warrant)

If the said_______shall give bail in the sum of Rs._________with one surety in

the sum of Rs._________( or two sureties each in the sum of Rs.__________) to attend
before this Court on the _______day of_____200___, at 10.30 o’clock in the forenoon
and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by this Court, he may be
released.

(SEAL) REGISTRAR

FORM III

BOND AND BAIL-BONDS AFTER ARREST UNDER A WARRANT IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Jurisdiction)

I,____________(name) of_____________being brought before the District

Magistrate of_____________(or as the case may be) under a warrant issued to compel
my appearance to answer to the charge of contempt of the Supreme Court do
hereby bind myself to attend the Supreme Court on the _________day
of_________next, to answere to the said charge, and to continue so to attend, until,
otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, and in case of my making default herein,
I bind myself to forfeit to Union India, the sum of rupees______________________

Dated this__________day of____________200___

(SIGNATURE)

I do hereby declare myself surety for the above named of_________that he

shall attend before_____________in the Supreme Court on the __________day
of_________next, to answer to the charge on which he has been arrested, and shall
continues to attend until otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, and, in case of
his making default therein, I bind myself to forfeit to Union of India, the sum of
rupees_______________.

Dated this_________day of______200__

(SIGNATURE)

FORM IV
 WARRANT OF COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT

[Rule 16]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Jurisdiction)

To the Superintendent (or Keeper) of the Jail at__________

Whereas at the Court Holden on this day (name and description of the
contemner) has been adjudged by the Court guilty of willful contempt of Court, and
he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period___________(here
specify the term) and/or to pay a fine of rupees_______

This is to authorise and require you, the Superintendent (or Keeper) of the
said Jail, to receive the said (name of the contemner) into your custody, together
with this warrant, and him safely to keep in the said Jail for the said period of (term
of imprisonment) or for such shorter period as may hereafter be fixed by order of
this Court and intimated to you. You are directed to return this warrant with an
endorsement certifying the manner of its execution.

You are further directed that while the said__________is in your custody,
produce the said__________before the Court, at all times when the Court shall so
direct.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this_________day

of______200__

(SEAL)

REGISTRAR