1

Chapter 1: Introduction
Meaning: Contempt is an act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body. In legal terminology, contempt refers to any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judges ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court1. There are essentially two types of contempt: Disrespect to the decorum of the court (being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge) Willful failure to obey an order of the court (failure to make a court-ordered payment, such as alimony, may result in a finding of contempt) The courts power to punish for contempt includes fines and/or jail time. Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable, unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive. Criminal contempt involves the obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence. Criminal contempt occurs when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge. This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A criminal contemnor may be fined, jailed or both as punishment for his act. Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside of the judges presence and evidence must be presented to prove the contempt. The theory behind the punishment is to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. In family law, civil contempt may be a method of enforcing alimony, child support, custody and visitation orders which have been violated.

Miller C.J., Contempt of Court, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 34

Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel, jurors, witnesses, or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom. The essence of contempt of court is that the misconduct impairs the fair and efficient administration of justice. Contempt laws generally require that the actions present a clear and present danger that threatens the administration of justice. The manner in which an act is committed or the tone in which words are spoken can determine whether contempt has occurred. Circumstances, such as the context in which the words were spoken, the tone, the facial expression, the manner, and the emphasis, are also evaluated by the court. Failure to complete an act that, if completed, would tend to bring the court into disrespect does not preclude the act from being contemptuous2. Definition: Owing to the vast manifestations of the offence of contempt and the very wide field that the law of contempt covers, it has been found exceedingly difficult to discover complete and apposite definition of contempt. The jurists and judges have contented themselves by describing the ingredients of the offence and by citing illustration of what a contempt of court can be. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia3, In law, an act of disobedience to a court order may be treated as either criminal or civil contempt; sanctions for the latter end upon compliance with the order. An act or language that consists solely of an affront to a court or interferes with the conduct of its business constitutes criminal contempt; such contempt carries sanctions designed to punish as well as to coerce compliance. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia4, Contempt, in law, means interference with the functioning of a legislature or court. In its narrow and more usual sense, contempt refers to the despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. A contempt of court can be classified as civil or criminal, direct or constructive. Civil and criminal contempt are distinguished by the function of the punishment; if it is to vindicate judicial authority, the contempt is criminal; if it is to enforce the rights and remedies of a party, and the contempt is civil. A direct contempt is one

2 3

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p. 345

William Benton, The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 15th edition, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., London, 1974, p. 134 4 The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, Columbia University Press, New York, 2010, p. 346

committed in the presence of the court while it is in session. A constructive contempt is one that is committed at a distance from the court and that tends to obstruct or defeat the administration of justice. A refusal to answer a question when directed to answer by a judge is a direct criminal contempt. Disobeying an injunction or a court order that a judgment be satisfied is a civil contempt. A major distinction is whether the court needs to hear evidence to determine if contempt was committed. Direct criminal contempt may be punished summarily by fine or imprisonment; civil and constructive criminal contempt can also be punished by fine or imprisonment, but the accused must be granted a hearing. In the United States, Congress can punish for contempt of Congress behavior that occurs during legislative proceedings and that threatens its legislative power. Congress must act before it adjourns and any imprisonment can last no longer than that session. State legislatures also have limited powers to punish for contempt. Under Wests Encyclopedia of American Law5, Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel, jurors, witnesses, or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside of a courtroom. Courts have great leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about the distinctions between types of contempt. Generally, however, contempt proceedings are categorized as civil or criminal, and direct or indirect. Contempt under Devils Dictionary6 is the feeling of a prudent man for an enemy who is too formidable safely to be opposed. Contempt under World University Encyclopedia7 is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; it is similar to scorn. It is also used when people are being sarcastic. Contempt is also defined as the state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace, and an open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.

5 6

Thomson Gale, West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Books Inc.: New York, 2010, p. 245 Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, Butterworths: London, 1911, p. 451 7 World University Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, Books, Inc., New York, 1968, p. 1304.

According to the Encyclopedia Americana International8, contempt is the deliberate obstruction of a courts proceedings by refusing to obey a court order or by interfering with court procedures. Contempt of court can be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 9, the act of contemning or despising; the feeling with which one regards that which is esteemed mean, vile, or worthless, disdain, scorn.

Grolier, Encyclopedia Americana International, 7th Vol., Grolier International Incorporated: America, 1984, p. 686. 9 Houghton Mifflin, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, Houghton Mifflin Company: America, 2009, p. 341

Chapter 2: Origin of Contempt in India

The law of contempt is a branch of law which originated and developed in a manner quite different from other laws. Kings created the contempt jurisdiction and claimed it was a natural adjunct to their adjudicating work. A law which began as a convenient method to enforce their orders was subsequently used to extract respect from the challenges of the press. The origin of the law of contempt of court in India can be traced from the English law. This law in India is nothing but the offspring of the British administration of justice in India. Creation of different Courts of Record in India necessarily meant the introduction of English Law of Contempt in some measure10. Establishment of the Court of Mayor and Corporation of Madras under the East India Companys Charter of 168711 was the earliest Court of Record created in India. Admiralty Court established under the Royal Charter of 1683 had the right to hear appeals and hence Admiralty Court was also considered a Court of Record. Later Mayors Court was created by the Charter of 172712, which was reconstituted by the Charter of 1753. These courts had power to punish for contempt. In pursuance of the Regulating Act 1773, the Mayors Court at Calcutta was succeeded by the Supreme Court established under a Charter granted in 1774. The Mayors Court at Bombay and Madras were superseded by the Recorders Court at Madras. It was abolished by the Government of India Act, 1800 and the Supreme Court was established in the place of Recorders Court at Bombay by a Charter granted under the Statute of 1823. The Recorders Court and Supreme Court had the same powers for punishing for contempt as the superior courts of England. The Supreme Courts were in turn succeeded by the High Courts under the High Courts Act of 1861. The High Court of Calcutta was a court of record in all its jurisdictions and therefore possessed power to commit for contempt13. In 1886, the High Court of Allahabad was established under the High Courts Act, 1861 and was constituted as a Court of Record. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered this

10 11

VIII CAD 382; Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 4 (1963) Charter granted by the Governor and Company of Merchants Trading into the East India, to the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Madras. 12 II Vestiges of Old Madras 1640-1800, 241,242(Charter of 1727, 249) 13 Re Abdool and Mehtaf (1867) 8 W.R. (Cr.) 32

jurisdiction of the High Court in 1879 in Martin v. Lawrence14. Mr. Justice White observed: The jurisdiction of the court, under which this process of contempt issued is a jurisdiction that it has inherited from the old Supreme Court and was conferred upon that court by the Charters of the authority of the then court of Kings Bench and the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain, and this jurisdiction has not been removed or affected by the Civil Procedure Code. The inherent powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt were later affirmed by Lahore15 and Patna16 High Court. Privy Council also accepted the same view in Ambard v. Attorney General, Trinidad and Tabago17. These decisions show that the power to punish summarily for contempt is not created by statute, but inherent in every court of record. Prior to the passing of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926, there was a conflict of opinion among the different High Court as to their power to commit for contempt of subordinate court. Madras18 and Bombay19 High Court expressed the view that the High Courts could have jurisdiction to deal with contempt of the Mofussil Courts. But the Calcutta20 High Court expressed the view that the High Court in India did not possess identical power in matters of contempt of their subordinate courts as possessed by the Court of Kings Bench in England. In 1926, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with contempt of subordinate court under its inherent powers as a court of record. For making the concept of contempt more specific and for providing punishment for contempt of subordinate courts, the first Indian statute on the law of contempt i.e., the Contempt of Courts Act was passed in 1926. It was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts. When the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 (XII of 1926) was in existence in British India, various Indian States also had their corresponding enactment. These States were Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin and Saurashtra. Section 2 of the Act, 1926, empowered the High Courts of judicature to exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority to punish contempt of subordinate court. The Act was amended

14 15

I.L.R. 4 Cal. 444 (1879) In the Matter of Muslim Outlook, AIR 1927 Lah. 610 16 Emperor v. Murali Manohar Prasad, AIR 1929 Pat 72. 17 AIR 1936 P.C. 141. 18 In the Matter of K. Venkta Rao, 121, C. 239 (1921) 19 Re Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, AIR 1920 Bom. 175 20 Legal Remembrancer v. Motilal Ghose, 1913, ILR Cal. 173

in 1937 to make it clear that the limits of punishment provided in the Act related not only to contempt of subordinate court but also to all cases. Articles 12921 and 21522 of the Constitution of India made the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively as Court of Record. Article 225 permits the High Courts to continue the jurisdiction and powers which they possessed immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Though the High Court as a Court of Record had the power to punish contempt of itself, doubt arose as to the power of the Court of Record to punish contempt of subordinate courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 did not contain any provision with regard to contempt of courts subordinate to Chief Courts and Judicial Commissioners Court and also extra territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in matters of contempt. So, the 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). Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 conferred the power on the High Courts including that of the Judicial Commissioners Court to punish contempt of subordinate court. Section 4 of the Act limited the punishment to be awarded in case of contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act 1952, though sound so far as it goes, touches only the fringes of the subject. While its existing provisions should be continued there is need for widening considerably the scope of the Act23. The unsatisfactory nature of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 necessitated the government to constitute a Committee to study the matter for the proper functioning of the law of contempt. An attempt was made in April, 1960 to introduce in the Lok Sabha a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to Contempt of Courts. On an examination of the Bill, Government appears to have felt that the law relating to contempt of courts in uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory and that in the light of the Constitutional changes which have taken place in the country, it would be advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a Special Committee set up for the purpose In pursuance of that decision, a Committee was set up on July 29, 1961 under the Chairmanship of the late H N Sanyal, the then Additional Solicitor General.
21

Article 129: The Supreme Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself 22 Article 215: Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself 23 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 9 (1963)

The Committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own Country and various foreign Countries. The recommendations, which the Committee made, took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice. The Sanyal Committee submitted its report on February 28, 1963 to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by the government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. The Joint Select Committee of Parliament on Contempt of Courts examined the issue in detail and the Committee prepared a new Bill, the Contempt of courts Bill, 1968. The Bill seeks to give effect to the accepted recommendations of the Sanyal Committee. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. In a very practical move and in an effort to sanctify the ideal of justice, The Contempt of Courts Act, 197124, was enacted to identify and punish those very persons who, in any way, put an obstacle in the path of the judiciary to deliver justice to the people. One of the basic principles of a sound judiciary is that everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial without any prejudice whatsoever. Therefore, any action, either direct or indirect, which is detrimental to the judicial ideal of justice is sought to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

24

It came into force w.e.f. December 24, 1971 (70 of 1971)

Chapter 3: Contempt Liability & State

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines Contempt under section 2(a) to mean civil contempt and criminal contempt. Further, under section 2(b), Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Under section 2(c), Criminal contempt 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: Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner The contempt jurisdiction is very wide. The court has power to punish every person, body or authority found guilty of the contempt of court. However, contempt liability of the lawyers, judges, state and corporate bodies is of special importance. In India, it is now well settled that the State is not immune from the contempt liability and therefore, it may be held liable for contempt of court25. In Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India26, the Chief Minister of U.P. had given the undertaking to the court for protecting Babri Masjid in his personal capacity as well as in his official capacity. He was found guilty of willfully committing breach of undertaking and therefore, the court sentenced him to one days token imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. A minister or officer of government is also, either in his official capacity or, if there is a personal element contributing to contempt, in his personal capacity, liable in contempt. There is no immunity for any authority of government if a personal element is shown in the act of disobedience of the order of the court.

25 26

Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India; AIR 1995 SC 548 AIR 1995 SC 548

10

If an injunction or order is passed against the State and it is found that there has been willful disobedience thereof, apart from the State, 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 order27. Thus, if the court is satisfied that the officer had knowledge of the order and it was his duty to implement or carry out the order, he will be held liable for disobedience and may be punished for contempt. In case of any doubt as to the validity of the order, he should apply for clarification or verification or modification before the court which has passed the order28. In the case of disobedience of the order, the defense of ignorance or the belief that the order was invalid and not binding or bona fide doubt as to its correctness is not allowed, even if this belief is based on proper legal advice. If the State officer is advised by the legal adviser that the order is not binding, the officer should apply before the court for clarification. No officer can sit in appeal over an order of any court for judging its validity or correctness for deciding whether it should be implemented or not. Sometimes, the action is taken at different levels and it is very difficult to determine who is actually responsible for disobedience. To meet such a situation, it is better if rules are framed by the government for determining the responsibility for implementation of the courts order. However, at present, even in such condition, the officer on whom the duty lies to see that the order is carried out and has knowledge of the order is held responsible for disobedience and is punished for contempt. An important issue is whether noting of opinion in internal files against the order of the court may amount to contempt. Actually, a government functions by taking decisions on the strength of views and suggestions expressed by the various officers at different level ultimately getting finality at the hands of the ministers concerned. Till then, conflicting opinions, views and suggestions would have emanated from various officers at the lower level. There should not be nay fetter on the fearless and independent expression of opinions by the officers on the matters coming before them through the files. This is so, even when they consider the orders of the court. Officers of the government are often confronted with the orders of the courts and may find it difficult to weekly submit to such orders. On such occasions, they will necessarily have to note it

27 28

Taraftullah v. S.N. Moitra; AIR 1952 Cal 919 T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan; AIR 1996 SC 302 at 305

11

in the files, the reasons why the order cannot be complied with and also indicate that the courts would not have passed those orders if full facts were placed before them. The Court29 has made it clear that the expression of opinions by the officers in the internal files is for the use of department and not for outside exposure or publicity. To find the officers guilty for expressing their independent opinion, even against the orders of the courts in deserving cases, would cause impediments in the smooth working and functioning of the government. These internal noting, in fact, are privileged documents. Noting made by the officers in the files cannot be made the basis of contempt action against such officers who make the noting. If the ultimate action does not constitute contempt, the intermediary suggestion and views expressed in noting, which may sometimes even amount to ex facie disobedience of the court, will not amount to contempt of court. These notings are not meant for publication. They do not have the sanction of law as an effective order. They are only expression of opinion by the concerned officer on the subject under review. The Court30 has made it clear that if the person is involved in litigation, the courts can order him to produce all the documents he has which relate to the issues in the case. Even if they are confidential, the court can direct them to be produced when the party in possession does not produce them for the other side to see or at any rate for the court to see. When the court directs production of those documents, there is an implied undertaking that they will not be used for any other purpose. The production of these documents in ordinary cases is imposed with a limitation that the side for whose purpose documents are summoned by the court cannot use them for any purpose other than the one relating to the case involved. They cannot be basis for action of contempt. Another issue of importance is whether the government or any other authority can deny the implementation of the order of the court on the ground that the implementation of the order is violative of any rule. Such an issue also arose in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan31. In this case, the petitioner claimed for promotion as Chief Engineer and it was accepted by the High Court in contradistinction with that of the then incumbent and the decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The fact that the petitioner was not eligible under relevant rules for promotion as Chief Engineer was not brought to the notice of the court. When
29 30

State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shanker; 1987 CrLJ 1860 at p. 1864 State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shanker; 1987 CrLJ 1868 31 AIR 1996 SC 302

12

the claim had been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had become final, the government did not promote the petitioner in accordance with the courts order on the ground that he could not be promoted under the relevant rules. The court held that the refusal amounted to contempt of court. When the order has been passed by the court, the government or authority or the person to whom then order has been made has no option but to give effect to the order as passed by the court and if there is any doubt, he should ask for clarification32. It is to be noted that where an order is passed against an officer, his successor is also bound to obey the order and in case of willful disobedience, he may be held liable for contempt of court33.

32 33

AIR 1996 SC 302 at p. 305 Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. J.R. Chaudhary; 1996 CrLJ 1554 (All) at p. 1555

13

Conclusion
The Bar and Bench play an important role in the administration of justice. The judges administer the law with the assistance of the lawyers. The lawyers are officers of the courts and are expected to assist the courts in the administration of justice. For this purpose, they are required to maintain towards the court, a respectful attitude bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is important for the survival of society. Todays State is a welfare State. The government is entrusted with several responsibilities and duties. Many-a-times, the government, its agency or any officer thereof is required to implement the orders that are passed by the courts. When any such duty is imposed on the State for implementing the order of the court, the State, through its officer shall see to it and further the process of administration of justice. The main role of the courts is to administer justice. The natural justice principle says that Justice should not merely be done, it shall manifestly seem to be done. This means that any process of administration of justice will be complete only when the final order of the court is implemented effectively. Any disobedience or denial of implementation shall, therefore, be regarded as contempt of court. When the State is furnished with the duty to implement any order passed by any court, they are bound to comply and it has been established by way of judicial proceedings that State is not immune from contempt liability.

14

Bibliography
1. Dr. Kailash Rai; Legal Ethics: Accountability for Lawyers and Bench-Bar Relation; Central Law Publication 2. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyar; Law, Lawyer & Justice; B.R. Publishing Corp., New Delhi 3. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyer; Professional conduct & Advocacy; Oxford University Press 4. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971