Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4.
5.
6.
Remedies.
7.
Defenses; and
8.
ii.
Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceedings; or
iii.
The main forms of contempt of Courts are insult to Judges, attacks upon them
comments on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to
officers of the Court, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the Court, breach of
duty by officers connected with the Court and scandalising the Judges or the Courts.
The contempt proceedings are always with reference to the administration of justice. In
determining whether or not the act or omission complained of amounts to contempt of
Court, the test, which is applied and should be applied is whether in the circumstances, it
is calculated to obstruct or interfere or tends to obstruct or interfere with the
administration of justice. With this, the contempt of Court means, 'an act or omission
which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of Justice'.
2. KINDS OR CATEGORIES OF CONTEMPT OF
COURTS
As per Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Court may be
classified into A) Civil Contempt of Court; and
B)
A) Civil Contempt
Civil Contempts are taken as acts and omissions in procedure involving a private injury
by the disobedience of the judgment, order or other process of the Court.
According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Civil Contempt consists of disobeying the
orders and processes of the Court.
According to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 'Civil Contempt'
means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
of a Court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. For civil contempt there must
be disobedience to the order, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking given to the Court
and the disobedience or breach must be wilful. To constitute 'civil contempt' both these
elements must be proved. Civil contempt may be taken as a failure to obey the order of
the Court issued for the benefit of the opposite party. The purpose of the proceeding for
the civil contempt is not only to punish the contemner but also to exercise enforcement
and obedience to the order of the Court. It provides an instant and quick remedy to get the
order passed by the Court implemented. It is a sanction to enforce compliance with the
order of Court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by reason of noncompliance. Civil Contempt, actually, serves dual purpose i.
ii.
ii.
For civil contempt it is necessary that order which has been disobeyed must have
been passed by the Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. If the order has been
passed without jurisdiction, it is not binding on the party against which it has been passed
and therefore, the disobedience of such order will not amount to contempt of Court. The
burden to prove that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order lies on the person who
alleges it.
When the Court orders a person to do something or not to do something, it is
incumbent on that party to comply with that order forthwith. The person disobeying the
order of the Court will alone be responsible for the consequence and he cannot be heard
to say that he referred the matter to his higher officer.
The breach of undertaking given to the Court is also taken as contempt, if it is wilful.
The basis for taking the breach of undertaking as contempt of Court is that the contemner
by making a false representation to the Court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails
to honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the Court itself and thereby
obstructs the course of justice and brings disrepute to the judicial institution. But the
breach of undertaking recorded or forming part of compromise decree would not amount
to contempt of Court.
For civil contempt, the disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach
of undertaking given to the Court must be wilful. Wilful means the action or state for
which compulsion of ignorance or accident cannot be pleaded as excuse, intentional,
deliberate, due to perversity or self-will. To establish that the disobedience is wilful, it is
not necessary to show that it is contumacious in the sense that there is a direct intention to
disobey the order; it is sufficient to show that effective administration of justice requires
some penalty for disobedience to the order of the Court, if it is more than casual,
accidental or unintentional.
The essence of the civil contempt is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order or writ of a Court, and not mere inaction to give effect to it. The conduct
of the alleged contemner must be wilful showing deliberate and conscious disregard of
the Court's order, or a despising or disdainful attitude towards the verdict of the Court.
If a party who has full knowledge of the order of the Court or is conscious and aware of
the consequences and implications of the Court's order, ignores it or acts in violation of
the Court's order, it must be held that disobedience is wilful.
Whether the disobedience has been wilful or not is an issue to be decided by the
Court, taking into account the facts, the circumstances of the case.
B) Civil Contempt
A criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and
authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an action obstructing the
administration of justice, which leads to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the first Act which defines the term 'Criminal
Contempt'. Section 2(c) of the Act defines it as under:
Section 2(c) - xCriminal Contempt' 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.
ii.
iii.
However, the superior courts being courts of record have inherent power not only to
punish for the criminal contempt but also to determine what amounts to criminal
contempt.
The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act of a person
which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the
authority of the court. The scope of the criminal contempt has been made very wide so as
to empower the court to preserve the majesty of law, which is an indispensable condition
for the rule of law.
To constitute the criminal contempt it is not necessary that the publication or other act
should have actually resulted in scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court but it
is enough that the act is likely to result in scandalizing. Thus, the offence of contempt is
complete by mere attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of justice.
'Scandalize' connotes to speak falsely or maliciously, to bring into reproach, dishonour,
disgrace, to offend the feelings, conscience or propriety of an action. 'Scandalise' also
means to offend moral feelings, and to make a public scandal of, to utter false or
malicious reports of a person's conduct, slander, or to bring shame or discredit or to
disgrace. We can say that the word 'scandalise' means the defamatory, derogatory, false,
malicious, disgraceful statements regarding the persons as Judges.
It is for the Court to decide whether or not the publication or act is likely to
scandalize or lower the authority of the Court or interfere with due course of any judicial
proceeding or administration of justice.
The publication act will be taken as criminal contempt, if it has resulted in
scandalizing the authority of Court or interference with the due course of judicial
proceedings or interfering in the administration of justice in any matter.
The word 'publication' was given very wide meaning. The publication may be by words
(written or spoken) by signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter. But,
in the Act, it is not clear as to whether the publication should be taken to mean
publication to the general public or any kind of publication.
Scandalizing the Court means any hostile criticism of the Judge; any personal
attack on him, unconnected with the office he holds, is dealt with under the ordinary rules
of slander and libel. The criticism can form the basis for committal of contempt of Court
only if it is made against the Judge in the exercise of his judicial function.
The publication, which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding is taken as contempt of Court. Whenever the
publication or any other act unduly influences the result of litigation, it is treated as
criminal contempt of court and is punished therefor.
If the parties to a pending proceeding are abused and vilified and the words are
likely to cause prejudice to the case, it will amount to contempt of Court. The publication
or doing of any other act which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends
to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner is also taken as contempt of
Court.
An advocate is an officer of the Court and hence undue interference with the
advocate in the discharge of his professional functions amounts to contempt of Court.
Any conduct by which course or justice is prevented either by a party or a stranger is a
contempt of Court. Any person who interferes or prevents other person from coming to
the stream of justice is held liable for contempt of Court. The Court must be very careful
in analysing the facts and circumstances of the case for determining whether or not the
action taken by a person amounts to interference with the course of justice.
Witnesses are also integral part of the judicial process and they must have freedom to
perform their duties and so interference with the performance of their duties is taken as
contempt of Court. Abuse of the process of Court calculated to hamper the due course of
a judicial proceedings or the administration of justice amounts to contempt of Court.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 19): An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or
decision of 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 less than two
extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code makes
provision for punishing the person for refusing to sign a statement in certain conditions. It
provides that whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him when required to sign
that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that
statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. Section
228 of the Indian Penal Code deals with intentional insult or interruption to public servant
sitting in judicial proceeding. It provides that whoever intentionally offers any insult or
causes any interruption to any public servant while such public servant is sitting in any
stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or
with both.
procedure for investigation and punishing offenders for the offences specified in Sections
175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It provides that when any such
offence as is described in Sections 175, 178, 180 or 228 of the Indian Penal Code is
committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court
may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may at any time before the rising of
the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and after giving the offender a
reasonable opportunity or showing cause why he should not be punished under this
section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees and, in default of
payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month,
unless such fine be sooner paid. The procedure laid down for investigating and
punishing offenders for the offences specified in the aforesaid sections of the Indian
Penal Code is summary.
sections of the Indian Penal Code only when they are committed in the view or the
presence of the Court. Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the
procedure in cases where the Court considers that they should not be dealt with under
Section 345, stated above. It provides that if the Court in any case considers that a person
accused of any of the offences referred to in Section 345 and committed in its view or
presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine or that a fine
exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him or such Court is for any
other reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under Section 345, such
Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused
as herein before provided, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try
the same and may require security to be given for the appearance of such person before
such Magistrate or if sufficient security is not given shall forward such person in custody
to such Magistrate. The Magistrate to whom any case is forwarded under this section
shall proceed to deal with, as far as may be as if it was instituted on police report. Section
351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for appeal against the conviction under
Section 345, stated above. According to Section 351 any person sentenced by any court
other than a High Court under Section 345 may appeal to the Court to which decree or
orders made in such Court are ordinarily appealable.
Instances of Contempt:
The following instances are considered as committing of contempt.
a.
b.
c.
Comment by an advocate stating that a common man in the street has lost
confidence in the judiciary amounts to contempt of Court.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
To allege that Judge has acted with prejudice, bias and malice in the
A counsel who advises his client to disobey the order of the Court is also
held liable for contempt of Court.
s.
t.
u.
proceeding
or
interference
with administration of
the Court of Record, but only to the subordinate judiciaiy. The High Court and Supreme
Court are the Courts of Record and therefore the contempt proceedings are not
maintainable against the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court.
Contempt Liability of State, Corporate Bodies and their Officers:
At present, in India, the State is not immuned from the contempt liability and therefore it
may be held liable for contempt of Court.
1. If an injunction or order is passed against the State or corporate body and it is
found that there has been wilful disobedience thereof apart from the State or the
corporate body, the officer responsible for its implementation will also be liable
for contempt, if it is established that he was the person in charge of the subject
matter to which the injunction or order alleged to have been disobeyed related and
had knowledge of the order.
2. Where an order is passed against an officer, his successor is also bound to obey
the order and in the case of wilful disobedience he may be held liable for
contempt of Court.
3. As regards the liability of the Minister, it may be pointed out that, he may be
liable for contempt in his personal capacity when he violates the law resulting in
contempt of Court. In his official capacity, Minister or .Chief Minister are held
liable when they are party to the case 4 for any wilful disobedience of the orders of
the Court.
4. In the case of Corporation, apart from the Corporation, the officer or agent who
acts for Corporation and knowingly disobeys the order of the Court against the
Corporation, will be held liable for contempt even though the officer is not a party
to suit.
5. In the case of a company, apart from the company, the directors and other officers
may also be held liable for contempt even if the order is made against the
company as per the sub sections (4) and (5) of Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
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 the
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 sub sections (4) and (5) a)
'Company' means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of
individuals; and
b)
who are found to be indulged in repeated disobedience or from those who persist in
justifying the action rather than express the genuine regret or from those who do not have
real feeling of repentance and blames the circumstances which led to the contempt.
The Court, when it considers that the apology tendered in the Court is not sufficient,, may
say that the apology will be accepted only when it is made to the Court before the public.
The explanation to Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act makes it clear that an apology
shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if the accused
makes it bona fide.
According to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the contemner has
the right of appeal.
1.
An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the
c) The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant is not purged of 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
of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the remedy
by way of special leave petition under Article 136 of Indian Constitution is still available.
Review:
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not provide any provision to the Court for
review. The order of punishment is amenable to correction only in appeal under Section
19 of the Act. Proviso to Section 12(1) provides that the accused may be discharged or
the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the
Court.
7. DEFENCES
Defences against Criminal Contempt: Sections 3 to 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, provide for certain defences against criminal contempt as stated hereunder.
(I) Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt (Section 3):
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
representation, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere
with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any
civil or criminal proceedings pending at the time of publication, if at the time he
had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
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. 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.
ii.
Explanation: For the purposes of this Section, a judicial proceedings a) is said to be pending
(A)
otherwise.
(B)
In the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5
ii.
In any other case, when the Court take cognizance of the matter to which the
proceeding relates, and in 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 is
preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision
has expired.
iii.
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.
Fair
criticism
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.
(IV)
when
not
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 Chamber or 'in camera' unless
the Court had 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.
Contempts not punishable in certain cases (Section 13):
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 contempi is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially
to interfere with the due course of justice.
The contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and, therefore, it has to be
exercised in the exceptional cases. To initiate the contempt proceedings, it is not
sufficient that there is a technical contempt of courts. Even though the person has
technically committed contempt, the Court should not punish the contemner, unless there
is a substantial interference with the due course of justice. Section 13 of the Act is based
on the principle that the law does no1 take account of trivialities. If the publication or
other act is merely a defamatory attack on the Judge and it is not calculated tc interfere
with the due administration of justice, it will not be taker as contempt of Court but the
Judge can claim under the ordinal"} remedies for defamation.
In order to constitute criminal contempt, it is not necessary that there should be an actual
interference with the administrator of justice, but it is sufficient if the publication or act
complained of is likely to interfere with the administration of justice. The offence of
contempt is taken as complete by the attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of
justice and purity of the motive of the contemner.
The order has been passed without jurisdiction: If the order disobeyed is proved
to have been passed by the Court without jurisdiction or the undertaking violated is
proved to have been given in a proceeding which was without jurisdiction, the
disobedience or violation would not amount to contempt of Court. Actually order passed
without jurisdiction is void and a void order binds nobody.
The jurisdiction of the Court may be taken to mean the authority, which a Court
has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matter
represented in a formal way for its decision. The limit of the authority is imposed by the
Statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted. If no restriction or
limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.
The decree or order passed by the Court will be a nullity if it has no jurisdiction with the
subject matter of the proceedings or if the organisation of the Court is illegal.
3.
ambiguous orders are the Defences in the contempt orders, which are not specific and
complete, are considered as vague orders. In a contempt proceeding, a person may take
the plea that the terms of the order of injunction are ambiguous. If the direction in the
order of the Court depends on certain other facts and such facts are left undefined by the
order, the order will be taken as ambiguous order and its violation will not amount to the
contempt of Court.
4. No knowledge of Order: A person cannot be held guilty of contempt in infringing
an order of the Court of which he knows nothing. Where an order of status quo is passed
by the Court but the party continues the work prior to receiving the order and also he has
no actual knowledge of the order, he will not be liable for contempt of Court.
decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matter represented in a
formal way for its decision. The limit of the authority is imposed by the Statute, charter
or commission under which the Court is constituted. If no restriction or limit is imposed,
the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited.
The decree or order passed by the Court will be a nullity if it has no jurisdiction
with the subject matter of the proceedings or if the organisation of the Court is illegal.
Order disobeyed is vague or ambiguous: Vague and ambiguous orders are the Defences
in the contempt orders, which are not specific and complete, are considered as vague
orders. In a contempt proceeding, a person may take the plea that the terms of the order
of injunction are ambiguous. If the direction in the order of the Court depends on certain
other facts and such facts are left undefined by the order, the order will be taken as
ambiguous order and its violation will not amount to the contempt of Court.
No knowledge of Order: A person cannot be held guilty of contempt in infringing an
order of the Court of which he knows nothing. Where an order of status quo is passed by
the Court but the party continues the work prior to receiving the order and also he has no
actual knowledge of the order, he will not be liable for contempt of Court.
Compliance with the order is impossible: In ci
contempt of Court, it would be a valid defence to s that compliance with order of the
Court was impossib Actually impossibility plea is tested on a case by ca basis and if it is
found that the implementation of f order was not practically possible and it is proved 1
6.
Order
and rational
interpretation
and
tl respondent
adopts one of them and acts accordingly, 1 cannot be held liable for contempt of Court.
If the: is no doubt and a doubt is sought to be created, the defence will not be allowed.
7.
Other Defences not affected (Section 8): Nothin contained in this Act shall
be construed as implying the any other defence which would have been a valid defenc in
any proceedings for contempt of Court has cease to be available merely by reason of the
proviso of thi Act.
8. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contemp
(Section 9): Nothing contained in this Act shall bi construed as implying that any
disobedience, breach publication or other act is punishable as contempt o Court which
M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others,
AIR
1991 SC 1834.
7.
Char an Lai Sahu vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1988 SC 107.
8.
T. Deen Dayal vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh^ AIR 1997 SC 3451.
9.
State of Rajasthan
the
Court
held
that
the
statements
of
the
Chief
Ministe:
E.M.S.Namboodaripad had effects of lowering the prestige of th Judges and Courts in the
eyes of the people and, therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Consequently, the
Court punishe him for the contempt of Court. T.
2. Mohammad Aslant vs. Union of India and other* AIR 1995 SC 548:
In this case relating to protection of Babri Masjid, the Chie Minister Kalyan Singh
of the State of U.P. had given an undertaken to the Supreme Court for protecting the
Babri Masjid in th personal capacity as well as in his official capacity. The Chie Minister
had also given a solemn assurance to the Nationa Integration Council and permitted the
terms of that assurance t< be incorporated as his own undertaking to the Supreme Court
an< allowed an order to be passed on those terms. But the order wa not obeyed. The
Supreme Court observed that he could not bi absolved himself of the responsibility for
the disobedience of tru Order, unless he placed before the Court sufficient material whicl
would justify that he had taken all reasonable steps and precaution: to prevent the
occurrence. Indeed if such reasonable steps hac been taken he could not be faulted merely
because he did no do his best by the standards of others.
In this case there was no explanation at all apart from the fact that the Sadhus had
congregated in that place in large number The Government did give cogent reasons as to
what steps the government took to prevent the constructional equipment frorr getting into
site. And whether any reasonable effort had been made and evidence of that was not
placed before court.
The main question for consideration in this case before the Supreme Court was
whether the undertaking furnished by the Chief Minister was a personal undertaking or
was on behalf oi the State of U.P. The Court observed, it was both.
There is no immunity for any authority of Government if a personal element is shown in
the act of disobedience of order of the court, from the consequence of order of the court.
Even conduct is bound to affect the members of the Bar all over the country. It opined
that in view of it an exemplary punishment has to be meted out to him.
'I gave permission to allow inspection and/or comply with the Court's orders.'
Thereafter the appellant went to Delhi in connection with his official duty. On
return from Delhi he was intimated that the respondent was verbally requested to take
inspection but he did not do so on account of non-availability of a particular document.
The Court held that the appellant could not be held guilty of contempt because there was
substantial -compliance of the order of the court. The Court made it clear that the
appellant has substantially complied with the Court's order and he could not be held
guilty for contempt on the ground of non-supply of copies of documents.
It was more so when the copies of the documents were also subsequently given to
the respondent, though after the time allowed by the order. The principal and substantial
demand was inspection and that was admittedly allowed within time. Consequently nonsupply of copies of document could not be a ground for holding the appellant to have
deliberately disobeyed the order. In case the appellant intended to disobey the order he
would have not even permitted inspection. By inspection the appellant could copy out the
documents. The Court has observed that no court including the Court of Contempt is
entitled to take frivolities and trivialities
254 Professional Ethics, Accountancy for Lawyers & Bar-Bench Relation into account
while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is
taken to fight their legal battle, ffin such situation mercy is shown, the effect would be
that people would not knock the doors of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score
on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win and the week would
suffer. That would be a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a
fatal blow. The Court cannot be a party to it and it is duty bound to award proper
punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be.
6. M.B.Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others, AIR 1991
SG 1834.
The appellant who is practicing as an advocate had attacked the integrity of the
Sub Judge by saying that he was a contractor of the Municipal Committee, that he was in
collusion with the Dy. Commissioner and he was under his influence while representing
the plaintiff in civil suit and an ad-interim stay was not given, The Subordinate Judge
reported the matter to the District an( Sessions Judge and the latter submitted a report to