Analysis of Contempt of Court

The author of this blog is Anushka Agarwal, 3rd year, BBA LLB (H.) Corporate Law, University of Petroleum and Energy  Studies, Dehradun.

The concept of contempt of court has its genesis prior to the institution of courts. Earlier, the king was treated to be the supreme authority subsequently he cannot be questioned, abused, or scandalized for his decision. Everyone was expected to act in accordance with the directions or regulations set up by the king otherwise were awarded sanctions for conflicting with the same. Correspondingly, after the establishment of the court of law the similar stringent the rule is followed i.e. courts cannot be abused or scandalized, it's judicial proceedings cannot be prejudiced or obstructed by any conduct or publication with intent to disregard or lower the dignity of the court.

Contempt in its simple literal meaning is disgrace, scorn, or disobedience.[i] Contempt of court in general terms means any conduct with the intent to offend the dignity of the court or lower the prestige of the court. The expression contempt of court is not defined in The Contempt of Courts act, 1971, or in any other prevailing law in India. However, section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court act distinguishes contempt between civil contempt and criminal contempt.[ii]

NATURE OF DEFINITION CONTEMPT OF COURT

The definition of ‘contempt of court’ is not exhaustive in nature. The lawmakers have omitted in giving a precise definition to the contempt of court because it is so manifold in its aspects that it is difficult to lay down any exact definition of such an offense.

The court of records under article 129 and  215 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to punish for the contempt of court giving the power to the court to interpret what is contumacious. [iii]Its discretion cannot be confined within the four walls of a definition.[iv]  Any act or conduct to interfere in the administration of justice, prejudice the parties or disrespect or disregard of the court, etc. may constitute contempt irrespective of the presence of intent or not. However, general guidelines have been laid down to limit the powers of the courts of record to decide the contempt which otherwise could have resulted in judicial arbitrariness. Judicial pronouncements are also looked into by the court to determine contempt.

TYPES OF CONTEMPT

The Contempt of Court act, 1961 has classified contempt into criminal and civil contempt. However, there is another subtle category of contempt i.e. indirect and direct contempt recognized by the United States Department of Justice Archives.[v] The indirect contempt generally means that the disrespect, abuse or scandalized, prejudice, or interference done in the absence of the court. Whereas when such acts are done in the between the judicial proceedings of the court or under the court’s own eye is called direct contempt.

CIVIL CONTEMPT

Section 2(b) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971 has meticulously defined civil contempt as willful disobedience to any of the court’s order, decree, judgment, writ, or willful breach of an undertaking given to the court.[vi] In other words, civil contempt consists if one party fails to comply with something ordered by the court for the benefit of the opposition party through a civil action. However, to account for one party for this contempt it is necessary to establish that the order which was disobeyed was passed by the court having jurisdiction because an order passed by the court having incompetent jurisdiction does not have a binding effect.[vii] There is a dual purpose of intimidating such proceeding for the civil contempt i.e. enforcement of the orders of the court and vindication of the public interest by the punishment of the contemner.[viii]

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

Section 2(c) of the CCA, 1971 defines criminal contempt as the publication of words spoken, written or by visible representations of any matter or any court whatsoever which-

      i.        Scandalizes or tends to scandalize the authority of the court.

    ii.        Prejudices or interferes or tends to prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

   iii.        Interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.[ix]

However, its exception is enumerated in section 5 of the CCA, 1971, any fair criticism made in good faith and in the interest of the public regarding the conduct of the judge; the institution of the judiciary, or the functioning of the proceedings would not constitute contempt.[x] After the Amendment of 2006 bona fide intention and truth are also one of the exceptions to escape from the liability.

The ambit of the criminal contempt is very wide so as to preserve dignity of the courts. It is not limited to the definition provided; in section 2(c) certain discretionary powers are given to the court to decide criminal contempt which is curtailed by sections 13 and 16 of the act. To impose criminal liability for the criminal contempt completion of the act is not essential but a mere attempt to do such an act is sufficient for committing the offence of contempt of court. The presence of mens rea is also not necessary to constitute criminal contempt; the essence of this offence lies in the tendency to interfere with the due course of justice.[xi] Hence, criminal contempt follows strict liability rules.

PERIOD OF LIMITATION

Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act prescribes that the contempt proceedings should be initiated within one year from which the commission of the offence is presumed.[xii] Contempt proceedings can be initiated by two modes, either the Court can initiate the contempt proceedings itself suo moto or by filling an application.[xiii] However, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers provided under section 215 of the Constitution on exceptional circumstances.[xiv]

CONTEMPT OF COURT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression but it puts certain restrictions on the exercise of this right. Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to propagate ideas that are ensured by freedom of circulation of the publication.[xv] This fundamental right gives liberty to express one's views and opinions on any matter and can transmit it through any medium i.e. word of mouth or written. However, the exercise of this fundamental right is not absolute; certain limitations are imposed to curtail the misuse of the same.

There are instances where the contempt of court and freedom of speech and expression overlaps each other. Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India provides contempt of court as one of the grounds for imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. Protecting the administration of justice also becomes important for conducting the fair trial, delivering justice without any disturbances & interference, and in the interest of the public. Contempt of court is not violative of freedom of speech and expression but when the expression of ideas exceeds the reasonable and fair limit reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the state. Contempt of court is only a weapon for safeguarding the status and dignity of the courts not a contradicting concept to the fundamental rights. Thus, restrictions can be imposed on publication and on one’s speech, if it is made with the tendency or intention to scandalize or abuse the courts or interfere in the judicial proceedings.

CONCLUSION

The term ‘Contempt of Court’ is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes. [xvi] Contempt of court is to protect the judges from any external attacks but not a tool to be used to uphold the dignity of the judges.

[xvii]

REFERENCES:

---

[i] Tekchand J., The Law of Contempt of Court and of Legislature (4th ed., 1997), The University Book Agency, Allahabad.

[ii] Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971

[iii] Article 129 and  215 of the Constitution of India

[iv] Ahmed Ali v Superintendent, District Jail,  Tezpur, 1987 Cr.L.J. 1845 (Gau.)

[v] The United States of Department of Justice Archive, criminal resource manual (CRM)759

[vi] Section 2(b) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971

[vii] Sultan Ali Nanghiara v. Nur Hussain, AIR 1949 Lah 131

[viii] Vidya Sagar v. Third Aditional District Judge, Dehradun, 1991 Cr LJ 2286

[ix] Section 2(c) of the Contempt of the Court Act, 1971

[x] Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose, AIR 1953 S. C. 75

[xi] E P.C. Sen, Am 1970 SC 1821

[xii] Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971

[xiii] Pallav Seth v. Custodian and Others , (2001) 7 SCC 549

[xiv] M Santhi v Mr Pradeep Yadav, Contempt of Court no. 377 of 2018

[xv] Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

[xvi] Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd, [1973] 3 W.L.R. 298

[xvii] P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others, 1988 AIR 1208