Contempt of Court in India|Types & Punishment

What is Contempt of Court?

The Courts are the ultimate pedestal in the Country upon which justice is delivered through the beacon of due process. The Judiciary is the third pillar of democracy. In simple terms, contempt of Court is the act of disrespecting or being defiant towards the Court of law, including the judges. It refers to any actions which defy a court's authority, cast disrespect on a court, or impede the ability of the court to perform its function. In India, the offense of contempt of court is committed when an individual either disobeys a court order to a certain degree (known as civil contempt), or when a person says or does any act which scandalizes or prejudices, or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice (also known as criminal contempt). Contempt in India can be punished with a fine or imprisonment, or both.

Importance of Contempt of Court

The 1971 Contempt of Court Act was an important shift in Indian law. It built a thorough system meant to safeguard the honour and legitimacy of Indian courts. This statute lays out precise guidelines for abiding by and exhibiting respect for judicial rulings and proceedings across the nation. Citizens are expected to follow court orders under particular circumstances. When there is a hindrance or disruption brought about by non-compliance in cases that are being reviewed by the courts, these laws establish disciplinary repercussions. It acts as a barrier for those looking for ways to hinder court proceedings and rulings. The main idea behind this initiative was the observation of abuses against the judiciary by dignitaries, citizens, lawyers, and judges. Criminal contempt, which includes speaking negatively about the court's operations outside of the courtroom and may result in punishments akin to those for unethical behaviour, is one of two ways that contempt of court can manifest. Contrarily, civil contempt deals with defying a court's orders, such as failing to pay alimony or other financial obligations required by various laws, such as the maintenance law, or failing to comply with other financial compensations.

The Objective of the Contempt of Court Act of 1971

The main objectives of the 1971 Contempt of Court Act were to protect the public from interfering in legal procedures and to uphold the legitimacy of the judicial system. Additionally, it aims to ensure that justice is administered fairly and effectively across the country. To protect judges from unwarranted criticism or attacks and to make sure that the general public does not face barriers to accessing justice, this act sets several criteria as grounds for contempt of court. It forbids any conduct seen as an attempt to undermine or intimidate a witness's testimony to prevent the case from being heard by a jury or court. The act of posting anything that might have a detrimental impact on an ongoing legal case and perhaps have a negative impact on the outcome is also illegal. When cases are brought before the courts, these requirements are essential for making sure that fair justice is served. The Contempt of Court Act was officially enacted in 1971 as a part of India's legal system for precisely this reason.

What Is the Contempt of Court Act 1971?

The Supreme Court and High Court have a structure in place for dealing with contempt of court concerns thanks to the Contempt of Court Act of 1971. The Indian Constitution's Articles 129 and 215 expressly define this power. The definition of contempt within the High Court's subordinate courts is provided in further detail in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It's crucial to remember that Article 19(1) does not restrict this authority, so it cannot be used to defend against imposing criminal penalties for disrespectful behaviour. The standard punishments under this rule include of fines or up to six months imprisonment. But when deciding on a punishment, judges frequently mix a criminal sentence with other corrective measures, such as schooling or community service. To achieve fairness and justice in criminal processes, all conceivable outcomes must be consistent not only with national laws but also with accepted international standards.

Article 129 The Supreme Court is referred to in Article 129 as the & quot Court of Record,& quot which suggests that all of its actions and sessions are irrevocably documented as sources of evidence. Any statement against these records is considered contempt of court because they are beyond dispute. The Supreme Court has the power to punish those who are found guilty in certain situations, protecting the nation's rule of law. The phrase & quot Court of Record& quot has a strong connection to how courts work because of the linked register, which gives this court jurisdiction over areas outside of India. In all of India, the Supreme Court's decisions are legally binding. Contempt of Court statutes, contained in Article 129, provides for sanctions for violators of the rigorous laws laid out by the Supreme Court.

Article 142(2) The Supreme Court of India is empowered by Article 142(2) of the Indian Constitution to impose the appropriate punishments on individuals who blatantly disregard or disrespect the court's authority. This section is a component of a larger legal provision that gives the Supreme Court the right to enforce any law passed by Parliament that is connected to the rules in clause 1 if it sees fit. This article makes clear that anyone who disrupts the administration of justice or interferes with legal processes should not get away with their discourteous behaviour. It is crucial to understand that the Supreme Court has been given exceptional authority to administer justice and defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Even while it gives a lot of power, it does not trump individual freedom. While acting per the authority granted by this article, the court must make sure that no one's fundamental rights are compromised. It guarantees loyalty in terms of formal behaviour as well as mental health and a sense of community.

The Amendment of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 in 2006

This legal structure underwent a significant change in 2006 with the Contempt of Court Act, of 1971. A defence of the truth was now officially recognised, as it had been in Section 13 of the original 1971 law. This amendment's most important feature is that it emphasises the need for a court to take truth into account as a legitimate defence if it can be proven that doing so serves the public good. This reasonable defence clause suggests that other types of contempt are no longer punishable without concurrently presenting proof and evidence. The implementation of this amendment served three purposes: first, it sought to better protect citizens from unwarranted or unjustified contempt charges second, it sought to protect judicial officers from unwarranted threats and attacks on their authority and third, it strengthened the existing penalties for willful disobedience to court orders (civil contempt). In other words, this amendment has been beneficial not only for individuals but also for society as a whole.

The Reformation Required in the Contempt of Court Act of 1971

In India, the freedom of speech is significantly governed by the Contempt of Court Act of 1971. However, because of this law's expansive scope and possibility for confusion, there is an increasing demand for revision. This legislation was first adapted from England, where the offence of & quot scandalising the court& quot was abolished in 2013, partly as a reaction to the rising use of social media to criticise the legal system. The Act has occasionally been utilised by judges in India to punish people who disobey court orders or abuse their authority. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an increasing abuse of this authority, placing an unnecessary time and resource strain on the judicial system. The general public and people in positions of authority could both gain from amending the Contempt of Court Act of 1971. By eliminating the reliance on ambiguous interpretations and ensuring that the sentence is preceded by a better knowledge of the accused contemptuous behaviour, such improvements would enable more open and fair expression.

India's 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.

Certain elements are required to establish different types of contempt of court. For Civil contempt, the following essentials are

• the making of a valid court order

• knowledge of the order by respondent

• ability of the respondent to render compliance

• wilful disobedience of the order

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 representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

• Scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

• Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or

• Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

Third-Party Contempt

A third party to the proceeding may also be guilty of contempt of court if they have a part to play in the offense.

Limitation

The limitation period for starting contempt proceedings is established at one year from the day on which the alleged contemptuous act occurred, as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. Whether contempt proceedings were started by the court on its own or through an application, they must be started within the time specified by Section 20 of the Indian Penal Code. When an act of contempt, such as embarrassing the court or interfering with the administration of justice, occurs, the statute of limitations for criminal contempt proceedings starts to run. Therefore, no court may begin any kind of contempt proceedings more than a year after the alleged contemptuous act occurred. It is essential to appreciate how crucial it is to uphold this statute of limitations because it protects those who are accused of contempt. The establishment of a deadline for the completion of such proceedings ensures that those accused are not constantly threatened with the possibility that their case will be pursued endlessly or lose significance over time. As a result, this precaution shields people from unnecessary hardship and uncertainty if they become involved in legal conflicts.

Procedure Applicable to Contempt Proceedings:

To understand the procedure applicable, we need to understand the nature of the contempt as well, the procedure goes as- Recognising the nature of contempt proceedings

• When judicial processes are impeded or disrupted, contempt of court procedures results.

• Examples include releasing defamatory material about a judge, ignoring court orders, or offering false testimony.

• Contempt procedures fall outside of this dichotomous classification because they are neither criminal nor civil.

Procedures for Contempt Cases Conducted in the Face of a Record Court

• The applicable procedures for contempt proceedings involving Articles 129 (Supreme Court) and 215 (High Courts), respectively, are defined in Sections 14 and 15.

• The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the inherent authority to punish contempt without requesting outside assistance.

• This wide-ranging authority enables courts to change processes as necessary, although prudence is essential to guarantee justice.

• Contemnors must have lots of chances to defend themselves.

• They must first face specific accusations before facing any penalties.

• The Contempt of Courts Act shall serve as the framework for the procedure, ensuring fairness and justice.

Flexibility

• Even while there are rules to follow, courts are free to decide how to handle contempt matters.

• They are free to choose the course of action as long as it abides by the rules of justice and fairness.

The Contempt of Courts Act (1971), which governs contempt proceedings, deals with interference with the judicial system. These legal actions don't fit into either the civil or criminal categories. Procedures for cases heard in court and outside of it are outlined in Sections 14 and 15, respectively. Courts of record, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have the right to penalise contempt without referring the matter to an outside party, but they must use this authority carefully to uphold fairness and justice.

Cognizance and Procedure in case of contempt in the face of court:

When someone disrespects the court or interferes with its business, it is considered contempt of court. For cases before the Supreme Court or High Court, precise guidelines are laid out under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to address this. The individual charged with contempt is first given written notice of the allegations. They are allowed to defend themselves, tell their side of the story, and offer any supporting documentation. The court decides on the proper punishment or action after hearing from both parties. During the trial, a person who has been charged with contempt may request bail. This entails they may be allowed to leave custody in exchange for a pledge to appear at all upcoming court dates. Additionally, the data that the judge used to submit the case to the Chief Justice is taken into account during the trial. These regulations help maintain public respect for the court, which is essential for sustaining the court's dignity and achieving just justice. They also serve to deter disrespectful behaviour towards the court.

The procedure of Criminal Contempt outside the court:

Criminal contempt, often referred to as constructive contempt, takes place outside of the courtroom but still challenges the legitimacy of the court. This includes acting disrespectfully towards judges or other court employees, disregarding court orders, and making false claims about the conduct of a judge or law enforcement official. The court itself, the Advocate General, another party with the Advocate General's permission, or law officers representing High Courts in Union Territories as informed by the Central Government may all initiate a motion for constructive criminal contempt. Notifying the accused party, requesting their explanation, submitting a charge sheet with supporting evidence, and then holding a trial by the appropriate judicial authority are all steps in the correct method. If found guilty, the appropriate provisions dictate the consequences, which may include imprisonment.

Punishment for Contempt of Court

High Court and Supreme Court are bestowed with the power to punish for contempt of the court. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt of court can be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or both. In civil cases, if the court 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 civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. An accused may also be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on an apology being made by the accused to the satisfaction of the court. An apology is not supposed to be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

Punishment in case of a Company

A company's disgraceful acts can have serious ramifications, especially if people in charge of its operations at the time are held accountable. These people might also be found guilty in such circumstances, with harsher consequences. They can even be sentenced to time served in a civil prison for participating in disrespectful behaviour. Since civil imprisonment is sometimes viewed as one of the most rigid types of punishment, it serves as a clear reminder that businesses must prioritise ethical behaviour and meticulously carry out their obligations. Any breach of morality or violation of the law can have grave repercussions that affect both the offender and the organisations they represent.

Defenses allowed in a Contempt proceeding

Clause (b) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was introduced recently by the 2006 amendment, allows the accused to raise the defense of justification by the truth of such contempt, if the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the said defense is bona fide. However, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for 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.

Defences In Civil Contempt

The defences available in a civil court are- Lack of Knowledge of the Court Order: People cannot be held in contempt if they are not aware of the court order, hence, it is the successful party's duty to legally serve the order on the defendant.
Disobedience Caused by Uncontrollable Factors: As long as disobedience was unintended and not willful, contempt may be justified by demonstrating that it was caused by events beyond the accused's control, such as mishaps or procedural problems.

Defenses In Criminal Contempt

The importance of striking a balance between the right to free speech and the necessity to preserve the honour and efficiency of the legal system is highlighted by defences. They make sure that people or organisations aren't unduly punished for deeds that are innocent or represent lawful reporting on judicial processes. The defences available against criminal contempt are- Section 3: If someone is charged with releasing anything that allegedly obstructs or interferes with ongoing legal or criminal procedures, they may be exempt from punishment if they can show they had no cause to suspect such proceedings were occurring at the time the material was published. Section 4: This defence covers accurate accounts of court cases or any aspect of them. It is founded on the idea that justice should be transparent and available to the public so that everyone may fully comprehend the legal system. In most cases, publishing a fair and accurate report does not amount to contempt. To be eligible for immunity under this clause, anyone making use of this defence might need to present proof that such a report exists.

Criticisms against Contempt of Court

Former judges and legal professionals have strongly criticised the contempt of court clause due to its negative effects on free expression and its ambiguous definition, which invites potential abuse. To allow for more effective media reporting, Markandeya Katju, a retired Supreme Court judge and former chairman of the Press Council of India, urged for changes to the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act in 2011. Contempt Laws Under Examination by the Law Commission The Law Commission of India was charged by the Indian government in March 2018 with reviewing Section 2 of the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. The goal was to limit the types of contempt charges to those involving civil disobedience of court orders rather than criminal disgrace of the court. Such amendments will protect media personnel from penalties for 'scandalizing' the courts while maintaining their ability to cover legal issues. These prospective changes are meant to balance the right to free speech and respect for the rule of law.

Landmark judgements on contempt of court in India

Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) - Prashant Bhushan's harsh tweets regarding the Indian court and the Chief Justice resulted in suo moto contempt proceedings case.& quot The tweets violated the court's authority and constituted contempt, the Supreme Court said. Bhushan's defences of free speech were rejected, and he was given a 1-rupee fine with the threat of incarceration and a 3-year ban on practising law if he didn't pay. The court's dedication to maintaining its dignity while recognising the limits of free expression is highlighted by this decision.

Re: Hon'ble Justice Shri C.S. Karnan (2017)- For making unfounded accusations of corruption and partiality against high court justices, including the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice C.S. Karnan was subject to contempt proceedings. He persisted in bringing cases against other judges in violation of Supreme Court restraining orders. The Supreme Court ruled that he had violated the court's rules and damaged public confidence in the legal system when it found him guilty of criminal contempt. He received a six-month prison term. However, issues with procedural irregularities were brought up, such as the establishment of an unusually large bench and the unjust dismissal of Justice Karnan's written apologies.

Re: Vijay Kurle and others (2020)- Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran were the targets of scandalous accusations made in letters by Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, and Nilesh Ojha to Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The Court found these accusations to be extremely insulting and devoid of regret or apology. It emphasised the importance of avoiding unjustified criticism of judges and the court. Additionally, it noted that before making comments or criticising court decisions, people must have the knowledge necessary to question a judge's honesty. As a result, the Court found all three attorneys guilty of contempt of court and handed down sentences of three months in jail with no possibility of parole and a fine of Rs. 2000.

Abhyudaya Mishra v. Kunal Kamra (2020)- Kunal Kamra was accused of embarrassing the Supreme Court by criticising the expedited processing of Arnab Goswami's bail request for aiding suicide in tweets. No institution, not even the & quot most powerful court in the world,& quot should be immune to criticism in a democracy, according to Kamra, who claimed that his tweets were not meant to undercut the court's legitimacy or the public's confidence in it. The Attorney General of India emphasised the significance of legitimate criticism within the bounds of the law and warned that unfounded criticism of the Supreme Court would result in a penalty as specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Important considerations about the relationship between free expression and judicial contempt are raised by this case.

Purpose of Contempt of Court

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 losing his respect for the judiciary, then the confidence reposed in the courts is rudely shaken and the offender needs to be punished. In the essence of law of contempt is the protector of the seat of justice more than the person sitting the judge sitting in that seat.

Why do you need a Lawyer?

Sometimes the law and the legal framework can get confusing and difficult to understand, especially when the issue is regarding Court procedures, including an offense of contempt. In such a scenario, one may not realize how to determine the legal issue, the area to which the issue relates, whether the issue requires going to court, and, how the court procedure works. Seeing a lawyer and getting some legal advice can enable you to comprehend your choices and can give you the certainty to enable you to determine your legal recourse. An experienced attorney can give you expert advice on how to handle the legal issue owing to his/her years of experience in handling such cases. A criminal lawyer is an expert on the laws and can help you avoid significant mistakes that may cause financial or legal harm (or harm to reputation and jail time) or will require future legal proceedings to correct. Thus, by hiring an attorney you can ensure avoid delay and get on the right track. You can also ask a lawyer online a free legal question using LawRato's Ask a Free Question service.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty

4.0 | 2+ user ratings Greater Kailash - 1, Delhi
5 years

GET LEGAL HELP

GET LEGAL HELP

Googling your legal issue online?

The internet is not a lawyer and neither are you.
Talk to a real lawyer about your legal issue.

TALK TO A LAWYER