Contempt of court

Introduction
The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society and it is the judiciary which is vested with
the responsibility of guarding the rule of law in our country. For the judiciary to perform its function
effectively it is necessary that courts are respected and protected. This is why courts are entrusted with
the extraordinary power to punish those who bring shame to the court, disrespect it or tend to
undermine the authority of the judiciary. In A.G. v. Times Newspaper Ltd.1 it was said that rules
embodied in Law of Contempt of Court are the means by which the law vindicates the public interest
in the due administration of justice.
Definition
Contempt of court is behavior that defies the authority, justice and dignity of a court. Individuals may
be punished for contempt of court when they disobey an order, fail to comply with a request or tamper
with documents and evidence. Halsbury defines contempt as consisting of words spoken or written
which obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. The Preamble of the Act says that it
was introduced to outline the powers of the court to punish any violation of the courts in India and
giving out the procedure involved in such control. Clause (a) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 says that Contempt can be either Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt.
Civil Contempt
"Civil contempt" is defined as - "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking giving to a Court'" by Section 2 (b). Civil
contempt is basically a wrong to the person who is entitled to the benefit of a court order. Civil
Contempt is essentially initiated for effective implementation of an order. However, in cases of civil
contempt if the court thinks that a fine will not be enough and that imprisonment is necessary, then the
court may sentence the offender to a civil prison for a maximum term of 6 months.
The following conditions are necessary to constitute civil contempt:
(1) There must be a judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other process of a Court.
(2) The respondent must know of such order.
(3) The respondent should be capable of complying with the order.
(4) The disobedience or breach, as the case may be, must be wilful.
Therefore, to constitute a "civil contempt" it needs to be shown that there is a disobedience of a
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court and also that there was a willful
breach of an undertaking given to the Court.
Criminal Contempt
"Criminal Contempt" on the other hand is defined by Section 2 (c) means the publication (whether by
words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever which:
i. scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
ii. prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
iii. interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in

any other manner.

Under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, a contempt of court can be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, or with both.
According to Section 14 of the Act the Supreme Court or High Court may take action suo-motu or on
a motion made by the Advocate-General or any other person with consent of the Advocate General. 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. In union
territories the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a Law Officer
for the same. Article 129 and Article 215 respectively empower the Supreme Court and High Court to
punish persons for their contempt. This power is not subject to Article 19 (1) and clause 2 of the
Article says that the state may make any law imposing 'reasonable restriction' on the freedoms
guaranteed in the interest of security, public order and morality, or in relation to contempt of court
etc-.
Contempt that is criminal consists of a conduct which offends the majesty of law and undermines the
dignity of the courts. The offence of contempt is with the administration of justice and the paramount
idea is that no tribunal can function properly unless it is allowed to keep up its dignity. In general
parlance, the term, "contempt" signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard. The object
of the law is to make sure that the confidence reposed in the judiciary by the common man stays firm
and is not shaken by contemptuous comments made by a few unruly persons. The seat of the judiciary
rather than the person in that seat is what this law of contempt seeks to protect.
Difference between different types of Contempt
Civil contempt is usually a violation of rights of one party while criminal contempt is seen as an
offence against the judiciary and therefore the state. Civil contempt as distinguished from criminal
contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or
damages sustained by reason of non-compliance. Criminal contempt on the other hand is more
punitive in nature and is used to punish persons who behave impertinently.
While discussing contempt there are two types which are usually studied, direct contempt and indirect
contempt. Direct contempt is what takes place within and in presence of the court. Indirect contempt
occurs outside the courts and is done with an intention to demean the court. Attempting to bribe the
judges, withholding evidence, creating obstacles in judiciary process or publication of defamatory
material forms part of indirect contempt. 'Contempt of Court law' deals with non-interference with the
"administration of justice" and that is how the "due course of justice" that is required for a fair trial,
can require imposition of limitations on the freedom of speech and expression. 2
Contempt of Court and the Media
Trial by media is another important subject in this regard. The media has become an important avenue
of discussions and debates on daily issues and a lot of times media channels have been accused of
excessive coverage of certain sensitive cases. Such reportage may cause disparity in the trial and
create a strong public opinion. The judiciary also ultimately consists of judges who are susceptible to
be influenced by such media reports. Hence, such excessive and impartial media coverage tends to
obstruct justice and provide persons with a fair trial.
In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Proprietors of Indian Express3 the Supreme Court referred to the
observations of Justice Frankfurter in John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida4 . The Judiciary,
according to Justice Frankfurter could not function properly if what the press does is reasonably

calculated to disturb the judicial judgment in its duty and capacity to act solely on the basis of what is
before the Court. The judiciary is not independent unless Courts of Justice are enabled to administer
law by absence of pressure from without, or the presence of disfavour. Thus, we can see how media by
such reportage may cause contempt of court.
Defences and Exception to Contempt of Court
Now we shall briefly discuss the defences and exceptions to the rules of contempt. Clause (b) of
Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 that was introduced recently by 2006 Amendment Act,
allows the accused to raise the defence of justification by truth. If the court is satisfied that it is in
public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide then truth forms a valid
defence to contempt of court.
Section 3 of the Act says that innocent publication and distribution of the matter cannot be brought
under the ambit of contempt. Section 4 says that a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings is
not contempt either. Every individual has a Right to know what is happening around him and the
media by giving a detailed and truthful statement of the judicial proceedings is in fact doing a public
function. 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 according to Section 5. Also under
Section 6 any complaint made by an individual against a presiding officer to another sub-ordinate
court or to the high court, if made in good faith would not be classified as Contempt of the Court.
Criticism of Law of Contempt
Contempt law has also received a lot of criticism for various reasons. The discretion given to judges in
determining what contempt is and how to punish it has caused some legal jurists to argue that too
much power has been vested with the judges. In criminal contempt cases which become a separate
matter, they may end up being heard by the same judges and that is a clear violation of the principles
of natural justice.
Earl C. Dudley, University of Virginia law professor, said that: "the roles of victim, prosecutor and
judge are dangerously commingled."
Conclusion
In conclusion it can be said that the judiciary has to exercise caution while exercising its power to
punish for the contempt and judicial discretion should be used to punish persons only when there is a
clear instance of civil contempt or that there is an evident threat to continuance of a trial in a fair
manner. It is the function of the judiciary to protect the Rule of Law and in pursuance of that it is
necessary that the judiciary doesn't take arbitrary actions. Persons should be punished as per their
crime and it is the duty of the court to use its power equitably and bring justice to all.

* Aditi Agarwal, Third Year, B.A L.L.B (Hons.), National University of Advanced Legal Studies
(NUALS) Kochi, Kerala, Email Id.:- agrwl.aditi@gmail.com
1

(1974) AC 273 at 315

200th Report of the Law Commission of India on Trial by Media, 2006, available at
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/
3
1988(4) SCC 592
4
(1946) 328 US 331
2