‘‘CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 WITH THE JUDICIAL ASPECT’’
'Contempt of Court' Definition
"The
term ‘contempt of court’ is a generic term which describes conduct relating to
a particular procedure before a court which tends to undermine this system or
to prevent citizens from using it to resolve their disputes". This definition
by Lord Diplock when he rendered the judgment in the case of Attorney General
v. Times Newspapers Ltd.
This
term contempt of the court can easily be understood as when we are
disrespectful or disobedient in court, which means that we do not voluntarily
obey the court order or do not respect the legal authorities. The judge has the
right to impose sanctions, such as fines, or may send the detainee to prison
for a specified period, if the court finds him in contempt.
This
term can also be understood in terms of freedom to limit the judicial process.
As we know, all judges of the courts can initiate court proceedings which have
a certain limit within which they are free to conduct any court proceedings and
anything which restricts or interrupts them in the execution of any necessary
court proceedings may mean contempt of court.
Halsbury,
Oswald and Black Odgers also gave the court definition of contempt of court
and, in addition, spoke of its abuse and misinterpretation and its broad
perspective.
In India, the concept of Contempt of Court is defined in Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which has broadly describe it as civil contempt or criminal contempt.
There are two Articles in the Constitution of India which talk about the Contempt of Court and these are Article 129 and Article 142(2).
Article 129
Article
129 states that the Supreme Court will be the "Court of Record" and
has all the powers of those courts, including the power to punish for
self-disrespect. Now we need to know the meaning of "Court of Record"
to understand why something commented incorrectly against the court's decision
leads to contempt by the court.
Here
is the answer to this question. The "Court of Record" means a Court
that has its acts and procedures recorded for eternal memory or that memory
without end and as evidence or evidence. The veracity of these documents cannot
be questioned and these documents are also treated as a higher authority.
Anything declared against the veracity of these documents constitutes a
contempt for the court.
Article
142(2)
This
also does it mean that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right to
individual liberty if it has the power to sanction disobedience in court. We
know he is the custodian of all the rights we get from the Indian Constitution.
Therefore, he must protect these rights and cannot violate them.
ORIGIN
The origin of the contempt law in India can be traced back to
English law. In England, superior court records were formed early, exercising
the power to despise people who scandalized the court or judges. The right of
the Indian higher courts to punish contempt was recognized for the first time
by the Judicial Committee of the Private Council, which noted that the crime of
disrespecting the court and the powers of the higher courts to punish it are
the same in similar cases. case. courts like the Supreme Court in England. It
also noted that the three letters of contempt. Almost all of India's High Court,
with the exception of accredited higher courts, exercised the jurisdiction
inherent in a court of archives by the very nature of the court. It has been
accepted in court across India that jurisdiction is specific and inherent to
the very nature of the Court.
India's first stature on law of Contempt, which means the Court
of Contempt Act, was passed in 1926. It was enacted to define and limit the
powers of certain courts to punish contempt for the court. When the 1926 Court
Disdain Act (XII of 1926) existed in British India, several Indian states also
had their corresponding promises. These states were Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat,
Mysore, Pepsu, Rajastha, Travancore-Cochin and Saurasjtra.
State enactments of the Indian States and the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1926 were replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952).
In April 1960, an attempt was made to introduce a bill into Lok
Sabha to consolidate and amend the contempt law in court. In examining the
bill, the government appears to have considered the law of court disdain to be
uncertain, indefinite and unsatisfactory and that, in light of the
constitutional changes that have taken place in the country, the entire law on
the topic. by a special committee created for this purpose. Pursuant to this
decision, a Committee was formed on July 29, 1961 and submitted its report on
February 28, 1963 to define and limit the powers of certain courts to punish
failure of the courts and to regulate their procedures in relation to them.
The Law Commission of India (Chairman: Judge BS Chauhan)
presented its report on the Courts' Contempt Act of 1971. Contempt refers to
the crime of disrespect for the dignity or authority of a court. The law
divides contempt into civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to
voluntary disobedience to a court order. Criminal contempt includes any act or
publication that:
(i) "scandalizes" the court, or
(ii) adjudicate any
legal proceeding, or
(iii) Obstruct the
administration of justice in any other way. "Scandalizing the court"
generally refers to statements or publications that have the effect of
undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The report examines
whether the definition of contempt in law should be limited to civil contempt,
that is, intentional disobedience to court decisions. The Commission concluded
that it was not necessary to amend the law for the reasons set out below:
High number of cases of
Contempt Cases:
The Commission found
that there were a large number of civil (96,993) and criminal (583) contempt
cases pending in High courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission noted that
the high number of cases justifies the continued relevance of the law. She said
that changing the definition of contempt can reduce the overall impact of the
law and decrease people's respect for the courts and their authority and
functioning.
Source of power for
contempt:
The Commission pointed
out that the superior courts (Supreme Court and High courts) derive their
powers from the lack of respect for the Constitution. The Act only describes
the procedure to investigate and punish the lack of respect. Therefore,
removing the crime from the Law will not affect the constitutional powers
inherent in the higher courts to punish someone for lack of respect. These
powers will continue to exist, regardless of the 1971 law.Impact on subordinate
courts:
The Constitution allows superior
courts to sanction your contempt. The Act also allows the High Court to punish
subordinate courts for contempt. The Commission argued that if the definition
of contempt were reduced, the subordinate courts would suffer, since there
would be no recourse to deal with cases of contempt.
Ambiguity:
The Commission noted
that changing the definition of contempt would cause ambiguity. Indeed, the superior
courts will continue to exercise powers of contempt under the Constitution. If
there is no definition of criminal contempt, the higher courts can give various
definitions and interpretations of what constitutes contempt. The Commission
suggested maintaining the definition to ensure clarity.
Adequate guarantees:
The Commission noted
that several safeguards were incorporated into the Act to protect against its
misuse. For example, the law contains provisions that establish cases that do
not constitute contempt and cases in which contempt is not punishable. These
provisions suggest that the courts will not deal with all contempt cases. The
Commission further noted that the Act had stood up to judicial review and that
there was therefore no reason to change it.
Objectives:
● The law of contempt provides courts
with the necessary tools to verify attacks or unwarranted efforts to undermine
the rule of law.
● Indian people have great confidence in
the justice system, which is primarily responsible for the administration of
justice.
● The Hadi Hussain J. in the Nasir Uddin
Haider case, said that the 1971 Court Disdain Act had been enacted to dispel
doubts about the powers of a High court.
● The aim and aim of the contempt of the
judicial jurisdiction is to keep the majesty and dignity of the courts and
their majesty in the public's mind and that this is not reduced in any way.
Scope:
The scope of this Act is limited to the limits of the power of the courts to punish contempt of court and, to regulate its proceedings against it, this law applies to the whole of India. It is limited to the powers of the High courts to sanction and denounce with criminal contempt, including before the courts, magistrates or other persons acting in court. Its concept is broader than in the sense of the higher courts, but does not apply to the nyaya panchayats or other village courts.
Hypothesis:
The Contempt of
the court is an extremely useful and powerful tool and can be broad against the
parties to the case, the lawyer, the judicial officers and the witnesses. It
can also apply to protesters against the court, order or trial outside the
courtroom. After the revocation of various acts, contempt of the 1971 legal act
came in order to reinforce the absence of civil and criminal disrespect of the
court with the powers of the superior and supreme courts to punish in violation
of this law.
types of contempt of court in India.
Types
of Contempt of Court in India. Depending on the nature of the case in India,
Contempt of Court is of two types.
1.
Civil Contempt
2.
Criminal Contempt
Civil Contempt
There
is a case of voluntary disobedience to a court order that a person must be
aware of.
- Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup [1]
This is the case of not providing
assistance, although the court has ordered assistance. Order enforced by the
court for the delivery of real estate, but due to some obstruction, the
defendant did not do so. Consequently, he was considered responsible for
disobeying the orders of the competent civil court.
Another case is on the breach of an
undertaking which leads to Contempt of Court.
- U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority[2]
In
this case, the Supreme Court instructed the authorities in Noida to verify and
declare the details of the affidavit provided by the people for the placement
of the lots. Following the same instructions as the Supreme Court, a person
from Mr. S filed a false statement to mislead the court. The Secretariat sent a
statement of reasons against him to indicate why contempt should not be filed
against him for cheating the Supreme Court.
Defences
Against Civil Malpractice A person accused of civil negligence can rely on the
following defences:
Lack
of Knowledge of the order: A person cannot be held responsible for the
negligence of the court if he does not know the order made by the court or if
he pretends to ignore the order. There is an obligation for the winning party
through the courts that the approved order must be enforced to the person by
mail or in person or by certified copy. The convicted person can successfully
claim that the certified copy of the application has not been officially delivered
to him.
The
disobedience or the violation practiced should not be: If someone begs under
this defence, he can say that the act which he did was not done voluntarily, it
was just a simple accident or he can say it is out of his control. But this declaration
can only succeed if it is considered reasonable, otherwise it can be rejected.
The
order you disobeyed must be vague or ambiguous: if the court-approved order is
vague or ambiguous or if the order is not specific or complete in itself, a
person can obtain the defence of contempt if she says something against that
order.
This
defence was raised by the defendant. In that case, the Supreme Court ordered
the defendant's company to reinstate the plaintiff's promotion after a certain
date in service. However, the defendant did not present the monetary benefit
during the given period and a lawsuit was filed against him for Contempt to Court.
He defends the defence based on the evidence provided that was not mentioned by
the court to pay the material benefit. Finally, he receives the defence.
The
orders involve more than one reasonable interpretation: if the disregard of the court order
and the order appears to give more than one reasonable and rational
interpretation and the defendant adopts one of these interpretations and works
properly, he will not be responsible for the Contempt of the Court.
The
order of order is impossible: if the execution of the order is impossible or
cannot be done easily, it will be considered a defence in case of Contempt of Court.
However, it is necessary to differentiate the case of impossibility from the
case of simple difficulties. Because this defence can only be given if it is
impossible to make a request.
Criminal Contempt
Pursuant
to section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt is
defined as (i) the publication of any matter by words, spoken or written, or by
gestures, signs or by visible representation or (ii) perform any act which
includes:
a)
Scandalize or tend to scandalize, or diminish or tend to diminish the authority
of a court, or
b)
Prejudice interferes or tends to interfere in the course of any type of legal
procedure, or
(c)
obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or interfere with the administration
of justice in any way.
Case on Scandalizing the Court:
- Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh[4]
In
this case, a caste of lawyers attacks the High Court judge offensively and
scandalously. An application was filed with an electoral petitioner at the High
Court, who was a lawyer. He wanted to try to stick to new arguments in an
electoral petition and also transfer electoral requests. These things provoke
an attack on the High Court judicial process and tend to scandalize the Court.
In the present case, there was an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court judge
and create an interface to conduct a fair trial.
punishments
for contempt of court and remedies against an order of punishment.
Section
12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with punishment for of Contempt of Court. The High
Court and the Supreme Court have the power to punish someone for disrespecting
the court. Subsection 12 (1) of that Act states that a person who alleges Contempt
of Court can be punished with a simple prison sentence and that the prison
sentence can be extended for six months, or a fine that can be extended to two
thousand rupees or both types. punishment. However, an accused may be removed
or the sentence imposed may be postponed, provided that if he makes an apology
and the apology must satisfy the court, he alone can be exempt from of Court.
The explanation for this sentence is that if the accused apologized in good
faith, the apology will not be dismissed as conditional or qualified.
The court cannot impose a sentence
for Contempt of Court in excess of what is prescribed in the given section of
this law, neither against him nor against a court subordinate to him.
Section
13 has been added in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 after amendment in 2006. The new
law can be called The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006. This article
states that Contempt for the court cannot be punished. in certain circumstances
or in certain cases.
Clause (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that no court will be penalized for Contempt the court under this Act, unless disrespect is likely to make it difficult or likely to significantly hinder the course normal justice.
Clause (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that no court will be penalized for Contempt the court under this Act, unless disrespect is likely to make it difficult or likely to significantly hinder the course normal justice.
Clause (b) of Section 13 of this Act
states that of that the court may defend the truth if it considers that the act
performed in the public interest and the request to invoke that defense are in
good faith.
landmark judgements
- Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr[5]
In this case, the Judge held that
procedural aspect for Contempt of Court may still be prescribed by the
Parliament so that it could be applicable in the Supreme Court and the High
Court. This means that Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 which
prescribed a maximum fine of Rs. 5000 and imprisonment for a term of six months
shall be applicable in this case.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors[6]
In this case, it was stated that the
penalty for contempt in the 1971 Contempt of Court Act would only apply to the High
Court, but serves as a guide for the Supreme Court, The sentence was not
accompanied by rationality, which was worrying, because the Supreme Court had
received great powers that the drafters of the Indian Constitution had also not
granted.
- Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.[7]
This case is also similar to the
Supreme Court Bar Association Case. In this case, again, the Supreme Court
declared that the power to sanction contempt was inherent in nature and that
the provision of the Constitution recognized only the pre-existing situation
mentioned above.
The provision of the Contempt of
Court cannot be used to limit the exercise of jurisdiction given in Article 129
and Article 215 of the Constitution.
- P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others[8]
In this case, the Supreme Court
observed that judges could not use contempt jurisdiction to defend their own
dignity. Our country is the free market for ideas and nobody can limit
themselves to criticizing the justice system unless this criticism hinders ‘administration
of justice’.
- R.Rajagopal vs State Of T.N[9]
This case is also known as the Auto
Shankar case; In that case, Judge Jeevan Reddy invoked John Sullivan's famous
doctrine. This doctrine states that the public should be open to harsh comments
and accusations, provided that they are diligently done in good faith, even if
this is not true.
- In Re: Arundhati Roy[10]
In this case, the Supreme Court
observed that noted that fair criticisms of the conduct of a judge or the
institution of the judiciary and its role cannot be ignored if they are made in
good faith and in the public interest.
- Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain[11]
In this case, the Supreme court
observed that the defence of the truth can be granted to the person accused of
contempt if both conditions are met. They are: (i) if it is in the public
interest and (ii) the request to invoke the defence to be made in good faith. These
are given in Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
- Justice Karnan’s Case
He was the first sitting High Court
Judge to be jailed for six months on the accusation of Contempt of Court. In February 2017, a legal action was brought
against him after having charged twenty judges of the corruption branch of the
higher judiciary of Corruption. He wrote a letter to Prime Minister Modi
against it, but did not provide any evidence against him.
CONCLUSION:
The existing role relating to
contempt of lower courts is unsatisfactory and misleading in India. It appears
that evidently, the difficulties are in this regard overlap of contempt powers
under the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act and contempt powers of the
Supreme Court and High Court under the Indian constitution. The scenario is
seen as more complicated by way of the inconsistent interpretations followed
through the Supreme Court and High Court regarding diverse provisions under the
Indian Penal Code dealing with interference with the administration of justice
and exclusion clause contained in the Contempt of Courts Act. Not only the
higher court should be given the power to deal with contempt but also the lower
court should be given this power. Contempt of Court if seen from the
perspective of the judges, higher judicial officials seem good but if it comes
to the perspective of common people it turns towards its bad effect. With this
conclusion my hypothesis is partly correct and partly incorrect.
[1] Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup, AIR 2008 Gau 62: 2008
(2) Gau LR 706.
[2] U.P. Resi. Emp. Co-op., House B. Society v. New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority, AIR 2003 SC 2723.
[3] R.N. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1171
[4] Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 5332(NCE) of 1993.
[5] Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr, AIR 1998 SC
1895.
[6] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors,
(2004) 4 SCC 158.
[7] Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 516.
[8] P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others, 1988 AIR 1208.
[9] R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N, 1995 AIR 264.
[10]Re:Arundhati Roy…. … vs — on, 2002 AIR (SCW) 1210
[11] Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain,
NO.9 OF 2009.
Comments
Post a Comment