CONTEMPT OF COURT

This article was written by Zeta Teresa Pereira, a student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

INTRODUCTION

Contempt of Court refers to willful conduct that disobeys or dishonors the court and its proceedings, its officers and obstructs the administration of justice. Contempt of court can be of two types- direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt refers to conduct discrediting the court in the presence of the judge inside the court whereas indirect contempt refers to violation of a court order outside the presence of the court. The judge has the power to declare someone in contempt and can impose punishments and fines. There is rarely a punishment imposed without giving a first warning. Contempt of Court does not protect the personal dignity of the court but is intended to provide effective justice.

The objective of contempt of court is to administer a fair trial without any obstructions and to protect the court from unnecessary criticisms in the press. The court ensures the enforcement of its orders through contempt of court by imposing sanctions on those who refuse to comply with its authority.

ORIGIN OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT

The origin of contempt of court dates back to the time when the courts derived their powers from the kings. Disobedience to the courts was considered as disobedience to the king and was severely punished. Earlier, contempt considered of merely words. Acts such as insulting the judges, writing to the King’s Council reflecting in the judges of the King’s Bench and publishing scandalizing material about the court in the press were met with barbarous punishments. A man’s hands were cut off and fixed at the entrance of the gate for throwing a stone at one of the judges in the bench. In the 17^th century, the writ of attachment began to be used to compel performance between parties besides using it to punish those who obstruct the administration of justice. It later became part of the ordinary procedure of the court.

Origin in India:

The concept of contempt of court in India has been derived from the English law. The codified law on this subject was first enacted in 1926 and was known as, “The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926”. This Act suffered from many limitations- the act did not contain provisions for courts subordinate to the High Courts which comprise of courts subordinate to Chief courts and Judicial Commissioner’s courts and did not deal with the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts in the matters of contempt of court.

The 1926 Act was repealed by, “The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952”. The 1952 Act brought in two changes- it redefined the term, “High Court” to include Courts of Judicial Commissioners and gave power to the High Court to enquire into and try contempt of itself or any court subordinate to it irrespective of whether the contempt was alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction and irrespective of whether the person alleged to be guilty of the contempt was outside such limits.

A bill was introduced by B.B. Das Gupta on 1^st April 1960 in the LokSabha. The then government after examining the bill realized the need to amend the existing 1952 Act. A special committee under the chairmanship of Late Shri H.N. Sanyal was set up to examine the 1952 Act. The Sanyalcommittee gave its report which later took the shape of “The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”. The committee based its recommendation from the freedom of speech given in the Constitution of India and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of the courts. This Act divides contempt of court into two- civil contempt and criminal contempt.

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

This Act defines and limits the powers of the court in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate the procedure in relation to it. Section 2 of the Act defines contempt of court. Section 2 (a) states that contempt of court can mean either civil contempt or criminal contempt.

Section 2 (b) defines civil contempt. Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or another process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court[1]. This means that there should be willful disobedience or deliberateness on the part of the contemnor. If the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, intentionally and voluntarily violated the court’s order, then the contemnor shall be punished for contempt of court. The willful disobedience must be to any judgment, decree, direction, order or other process of a court or breach of an undertaking. In Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup[2], the defendant failed to obey the decree executed by the court to deliver immovable property because of certain obstruction. He was held liable for disobedience to the orders of the court. A person might get a beneficial order from the court by giving an undertaking; if he later refuses to abide by the undertaking, he has played fraud on the court and will be liable for contempt of court. InU.P. Resi.Emp.Co-op, House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority[3], a person filed a false affidavit to mislead the court. The Registry issued a show-cause notice against him as to why an act of contempt should not be taken against him.

If the contemnor claims that he was not aware of the court order, then he will not be liable for contempt of court. There is a duty to serve the order to the concerned party and if it is not duly served, he can claim the defence of lack of knowledge. The defence of involuntary breach of undertaking is available if the contemnor can successfully prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not intentionally or voluntarily commit breach of undertaking. The contemnor is not liable if the order by the court was vague or ambiguous. In the case of R.N. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh[4], the Supreme Court asked the respondent corporation to restore the promotion of the petitioner from a particular date in the service but the respondent did not produce the monetary benefit and a complaint was filed against him for contempt of court. He pleaded that the court order was vague and was consequently let off. Same is the case if the orders have more than one reasonable interpretation or if compliance to the order is impossible. Disobedience of a court order passed without jurisdiction does not amount to contempt of court.

Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt. It 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) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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; (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[5].

From the above definition, it is clear that there are four essentials to criminal contempt. There should be publication by words, spoken or written, signs etc. of any matter that scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court. Scandalizing means an attack on the individual judges or the court. Such allegations tend to lower the prestige of the court in the eyes of the common people. An advocate was held liable for casting derogatory remarks on the judge of the High Court[6]. Any act that prejudices or interferes with the administration of justice in any manner is criminal contempt. It was held in J.R. Parashar v. PrashantBhushan[7] that holding strikes in itself would not amount to contempt of court but obstructing the court and its officers by holding strikes would amount to contempt of court.

Fair criticism of judicial proceedings, innocent publication of the court proceedings, justification by truth, defamation of a judge personally without obstruction to administration of justice, bonafide complain against the court’s officer etc. do not amount to criminal contempt of court.

Punishment: Section 12 deals with punishments for contempt of courts. A contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend up to 2000 rupees or both.

Remedies: If the contemnor issues an apology to the court and the court is satisfied that the apology has been made with a real sense of repentance, the court may remit the punishment awarded. The contemnor has an option of appeal. Section 19 allows appeal from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

Period of Limitation: Section 20 deals with the period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings. No court shall initiate proceeding after the expiry of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. The period of limitation is applicable to both civil and criminal contempt of court.

Landmark Contempt Judgments:

• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India &Anr[8]

The Court held that the procedural aspect for Contempt of Courtprescribed by the Parliament is applicable in the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts. Therefore, Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which prescribes a fine of Rs. 5000 and imprisonment for a term of six months shall be applicable in this case.

• Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. &Ors.[9]

The Supreme Court held that the power to punish for contempt of court is inherent in the nature of the Constitution of India.

• N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar &Ors[10]

The Court held that the judges cannot apply contempt of court for protecting their own dignity. Contempt of court should only be applied when it hampers the “administration of justice”.

CONTEMPT OF COURT IN OTHER COUNTRIES

1. ENGLAND and WALES: The contempt law is partly based on case laws (common law) and partly codified by the Contempt of Court Act, 1981. Contempt is divided into civil and criminal. There is a strict liability contempt that prevents media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over.
2. AUSTRALIA: A judge may impose a fine or jail for contempt of court for refusing to stand up for a judge. Acts which interrupts the fair trial or publications which obstructs the administration of justice amount to contempt of court.
3. UNITED STATES: The acts are divided into civil or criminal and direct or indirect. Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the judge and civil contempt is coercive and remedial. There is no principle of proportionality in civil contempt cases.

CONCLUSION

The origin of contempt of court in India was during the pre-Independence era when the British used contempt of court to stifle the public opinion of the judiciary. The Act has been amended since then but some loopholes still remain in the law.The law of contempt of court does not protect the personal dignity of the judges but the dignity and status of the court as whole. The law of contempt has to balance the freedom of speech and expression as well as ensure fair administration of justice. Reasonable restrictions must be imposed to preserve the nobility of the court at all times. The public holds firm belief in the judiciary and its reputation should not be lowered under any circumstances.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Diganth Raj Sehgal, Contempt of Court, IPLEADERS (Dec 24, 2019, 12.44 P.M.), https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-of-court-2/

Vidhikkumar, Contempt of Court: Analysis, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (Dec 24, 2019, 12.49 P.M.), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-472-contempt-of-court-analysis.html

Object of Law of Contempt, LAW TEACHER (Dec 24, 2019, 12.51 P.M.), https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/object-of-law-of-contempt-administrative-law-essay.php

[1]Section 2(b), The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[2]A.I.R. 2008 Gau 62

[3] 1990 A.I.R. 1325

[4]A.I.R. 1991 SC 1171

[5]Section 2(c), The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[6]Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 5332 (NCE) of 1993

[7] (2001) 6 SCC 735

[8]A.I.R. 1998 SC 1895

[9](2001) 1 SCC 516

[10]1988 A.I.R. 1208