Chapter-I

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND TO THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

“Our Judges are so honest as other men,

and not more so. They have with others
The same passions for party, far power
And privilege of their corps”1

It is an important question within every Judicial system as to “what comprises contemptuous

behaviour?”

Contempt has been defined by sir James Francis Oswald as “to speak generally contempt of
court may be said to be constituted of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere
with or prejudice parties litigant or their witness during the litigation”2. A three-tier
assessment of contempt was made by Lord Hadwick in 17423:
1. Scandalizing he court.
2. Maltreatment of parties concerned in a case, under the eye of the court.
3. Creating a bias or prejudice against the accused before the case is heard.

Contempt law dates to the formulation of the concept of justice and judicial systems.The
concept of contempt has been used by judicial officers since Roman times to preserve the
grandeur of the justice delivery mechanism. However, during the older times, these concepts
of contempt were used in a liberal manner at the discretion of the king.

The concept of contempt has, however, evolved with change in time. With enhancement in
the art of governance, the king or sovereign surrendered its power to the three organs of
democratic governance, namely, the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary4. All acts of judges
were deemed to be by the order of the king. Thus, it was referred to as the “Kings Justice”
and thus required complete admiration and compliance. The dignity of law would be
disrupted if any contempt came to the seat of justice. Justice Wilmot observed the following
in Rex v. Wilmot5.“ And whenever men’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it
is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice and in my opinion calls for rapid
and immediate action than any other obstruction whatsoever not for the sake of the judges as
private individuals but as they are the channels by which the Kings justice is conveyed to
people.”

1
Thomas Jefferson, as cited in Oxford Dictionary of Quatotations, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1999.

2
James Francis Oswald, Contempt of Court, 3rdEdn., Hindustan Law Books, Calcutta, 1993 at 6.
3
St. James Evening Post Case (1742) 2 A & K 469. Cited From, V. G Ramachandran, Contempt of Court,
5thEdn., Eastern Book Company, 1976 at 2.
4
Mosntesque’s idea of separation of power divided the state governing bodies into three organs. This model is
followed by almost all the jurisdictions in the world.
5
1975) Wilm 243.
The English judges were the first to give a steady balance to the provisions of contempt of
court. When the court of record was stablished in India in the 19th century by the British, the
concept of contempt of court was introduced in India. This was further solidified by the
Contempt of Court Act, 1926. There was difference in opinion regarding the protection of
subordinate courts6 with the Bombay and Madras High courts on one side and the Calcutta
High court on the other. This difference in opinion lead to the need for contempt legislation.
Thus, the contempt of court Act, 1926 was an attempt to formulate a complete and
comprehensive legislation. However, the act lacked any certain provisions with respect to
contempt in subordinate courts and only the Chief courts and Judicial commissioners were
covered under the act of 1926. The extra territorial jurisdiction of the High courts was also
excluded from the preview of the act.

There were only three sections in the contempt of court act of 1926. It was a short act and the
preamble mentioned that “it was an act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in
punishing for contempt of courts.” Certain doubts concerning the powers of the High court to
punish contempt arose and it was considered necessary to resolve these issues and put a limit
to the high court’s power to punish cases of contempt. It was laid down in the statute that a
contemnor may be punished with imprisonment which may not exceed a period of six months
and fine which may not exceed beyond 2000 rupees or both.7 The act of 1926 was thus found
to be inadequate and was replaced by the Contempt of Court Act, 1952. It was obvious that
the act of 1952 was introduced with overriding effect over the act of 1926 in order to enable
the High Court to exercise its contempt power beyond the limits of its extra territorial
jurisdiction.8

The provisions relating to punishment contained in the act of 1926 and the act of 1952 were
valid and constitutional, but they failed to meet the expectations of the general public and
interfered and restricted people in the exercise of their fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression. It was observed that the act of 1952 lacked certain safeguards which
could uphold freedom of press in India. Thus, a committee set up under Shri H. N. Sanyal
who was also the Solicitor General of India. Drastic changes to the law of contempt were
advised by the Sanyal committee which gave a very detailed report to the concerned
legislative authority. A bill was presented to select committee by the Sanyal committee in the

6
Justice V. C. Srivastava, Contempt of Court as Cited in K. N. Goyal, Judicial Miscellany, 1stEdn., Institute of
Judicial Training and Research Uttar Pradesh, 1993 at 33.

7
This amount of fine was imposed in 1926 and even today under the 1971 Act we have continuation of the same
provision without taking into consideration of the time elapsed and the value of money reduced.

8
K. N. Goyal, Judicial Miscellany, 1stEdn., Institute of Judicial Training and Research Uttar Pradesh, 1993 at 34.
Rajya Sabha on 19thFeburary 1968 which eventually was developed into the contempt of
court Act, 1971.

It is usually observed that the current law relating to contempt of court is indeterminate and
unsatisfactory. Two important fundamental rights, namely, right to freedom of expression and
right to personal liberty are directly affected in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for
contemptuous behaviour. It was thus considered essential to analyse and scrutinize the entire
existing law on contempt and this task was assigned to the Sanyal Committee. Most of the
recommendations made by the Sanyal committee were accepted by the government. We must
understand that in the legal sense, the proceedings of contempt do not comprise a dispute
between two parties but between the court and any person who is accused of degrading the
dignity of the court.9

Any person who brings to the knowledge of the court of any contemptuous behaviour is not
classified as a prosecutor but is considered only as an assistant or friend of the court. The
special jurisdiction to punish for the offence of contempt was described in Supreme Court
Bar Association v. Union of India10 as an apparent anomaly on the ground that the court
would not adjudicate on any claim among the parties to the litigation process. The authority
to obligate for contempt is punitive in nature. This allows to preserve the dignity and integrity
of the court and any orders passed during the process.

DEFINING CONTEMPT OF COURT

Contempt has been defined by various judges and jurist scholars. However, there is no
standard description of the phrase “contempt of court.” The Sanyal committee while
highlighting the difficulties in defining contempt of court made the following observation,”
In the law of contempt, difficulty and vagueness start at the definition stage itself. Contempt
in its root sense signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to respect or regard and the
expression contempt of court has been a recognized phrase in English law from the 12th
century. If administration of justice must be effective, respect for its administration has to be
fostered and maintained and it is out of rules framed by courts in this behalf that the law of
contempt has grown.”

9
State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy, AIR 1996 SC 2131.
10
1998 (4) SCC 409.
Extraordinary procedures and far reaching doctrines relating to contempt law have evolved
over the due course of time. These doctrines have evolved from elementary rules created for
the purpose of safeguarding compliance with the directions of the court. These doctrines and
procedures were never subjected to any kind of legislative supervision or scrutiny right till
the advent of the 21st century. As the law of contempt expanded its reach. Every time there
was a new type of threat to the administration of justice, the law on contempt witnessed a
corresponding extension. Even now it can be exclaimed that the categories of contempt are
not exhaustive in nature. On one end there is contempt based upon mere disregard to
directives of the court involving an offence of private nature between the parties to the
litigation proceedings. On the other hand, there is contempt involving violence or large-scale
blackmail or defamation by means of publication of information.

When a legal system develops through precedent based law, the entire process becomes
haphazard. In this case it becomes difficult to create a clear classification between various
divisions of law of contempt.

It becomes almost impossible to demarcate an area of action of law of contempt based on the
possibility of new forms of contempt ascending in future. It is for this reason that a complete
and exhaustive definition of contempt has not been successfully formulated by judges and
jurists. The following was observed by the Shawcross committee,” Not the least of the
difficulties in this field (definition) is that contempt, being growth of the common law, has no
authoritative definition or limitation…It can be defined in the most general terms.” One of
our own judges also observed,” It is indeed difficult and almost impossible to frame a
comprehensive and complete definition of contempt of court. The law of contempt covers the
whole field of litigation itself. The real end of a judicial proceeding, civil or criminal, is to
ascertain the true facts and dispense justice…Anything that tends to curtail or impair the
freedom of the limbs of the judicial proceeding must result in hampering the due
administration of law and in interfering with the course of justice.”11

11
S. Pal, Law of Contempt, Law Research Institute, Calcutta, 2001 at 26
Chapter-II
COMPARATIVE STUDY

Contempt under Common Law- Position in United Kingdom

An overview was given by Lord Justice Orton about the concept of contempt of court. The
act of contempt in England is restricted through judicial powers which can be exercised to
avoid any obstruction of justice and safeguard the dignity of the court.

Contempt can be of two types. It can either Civil or criminal in nature. When the interference
caused against the administration of justice is found to be intentional, such actions can be
termed as criminal contempt. On the other hand, when the act involves the disobedience of
decree or orders passed by the court even lacking the intent to interfere, the same can be
termed as civil contempt. It is essential that proof beyond any reasonable doubt is presented
to establish criminal contempt whereas civil contempt only requires a great amount of
evidence. The fact whether the contempt occurs inside the court or beyond its physical limits
holds significance. It is much harder to prove contempt when it occurs outside the court
room.

The option of a trial by jury is not provided to contemnors in England. The Contempt of
Court Act was passed in 1981by the parliament. This act imposed a two-year jail sentence for
both civil and criminal contempt along with a multitude of fines. The court also holds the
discretion to pardon the contemnor on account of an apology.

A fine of £40,000 was levied against the Evening Standard Newspaper by Lord Justice Otton.
The court of appeals had sustained the newspaper from publication of records of defendants
in a criminal charge for an explosive’s offence. In England, various restrictions are imposed
on reporting of court proceedings and publication of any material that might interfere in the
process of doing justice. Prejudicial results were observed in the Standard Newspapers case,
comprising an end to the criminal case.

The news published in the media might prejudice a juror and create a bias which can be
detrimental to the proceedings of the court. The contempt of court rules helps to prevent any
such actions before or during a trial.

The decision of the jury must only be influenced by the evidence presented during the trial.
The innocence of the accused must be assumed by the jury along with the presumption that
the accused has no previous criminal record.
Two sets of rules are used to govern Contempt of court:

1. Individual cases are governed by the Contempt of Court Act, 1981.

2. General administration of the law is governed through contempt
Under common law.

If a substantial risk is created by the story which may create a prejudice which might
seriously impede the course of a trial it can be used as a test to determine contempt. The use
of the words ‘serious’ and ‘substantial’ are the tests which help the court to determine if a
story would prejudice the mind of the reader who might be selected as a juror in a case.

The timing of the published story helps to determine the occurrence of contempt. If the time
between news getting published and the jury proceeding to conclude its decision is long, then
there are lesser chances that the story might lead to contempt. News outlets must anticipate
the average amount of time required for a case to go from apprehension to trial. The risk of
contempt increases if the news is published just before the commencement of the trial as
opposed to being published on an earlier occasion.

If the chances of the juror having read the so-called story is deemed to be high by the court,
the same is taken into account while determining contempt. If the story is published in the
western daily Darlington and the trial is happening in Essex County, then there is obviously
minimum chance of “substantial risk” or “serious prejudice” as a potential juror could not
have read it.

The court, presuming that the story might have been read by a potential juror would move on
to assess the initial impact that the story might have had on its reader. The same is done ny
understanding how the story was presented. For example, a front-page headline in a local
paper would certainly have more effect than story on the eighteenth page of a national. The
court would further evaluate the residual impact of the story. If a juror observes all the
evidence presented during the trial and hears all the arguments and witnesses and is
subsequently guided by the judge about the importance and relevance of the facts presented
before the court, then all initial and preconceive notions and prejudices tend to fade away in
light of actual evidence.

The courts generally take a liberal stance when it comes to the application of the Contempt of
Court Act, 1981.It is generally accepted by judges that most coverage that happens before a
trial can be prejudicial but ultimately falls short and is unable to create a “substantial risk” or
“serious prejudice”. There have been vivid accounts of the Geoff Knights assaulting a taxi
driver created by National Tabloids, however the same have been cleared of any charge of
contempt. It is necessary to understand that every case is different but by using the above-
mentioned tests an editor of a tabloid can make their own assessment of whether a piece of
news might lead to contempt. If the person who is arrested is released without any charge
except on account of bail, the provisions of the contempt of court Act, 1981 cease to be
active. Also, if arrest is not made within stipulated time and the case is discontinued.

It is safe if the newspapers use appeals made by police to help trace a wanted fugitive against
whom a warrant has been issued by the court, however the use of words or phrases like
“dangerous man” or “Help find the Monster” can create a substantial risk or serious
prejudice. However, the attorney General has assured that such actions by newspapers will
not be prosecuted as the standard for public safety overshadows the fugitive’s right to a just
and fair trial. However, this immunity ceases as soon as the “dangerous man” is arrested.

A defense is provided to the editor under Section 3 of the act. If during publication, having
taken all sensible consideration, he didn't have the vaguest idea and was not motivated to
presume that procedures in the specific trial were ongoing. Section 5 of the Act offers
insurance to stories, which are a dialogue of public dealings as long as the danger of partiality
to a specific case is only coincidental to the more extensive discourse.

The act also provides that, when the case is set for trial or when actual date of hearing has
been fixed, civil proceedings also become active when the risk of contempt is involved.Just
as a story, a picture can also be in contempt, for example, the case is based on the witness
identifying the accused in court or the test identification parade. If the media published a
picture of the accused in handcuffs standing next to the enforcement agency, it will certainly
create a prejudice in the mind of the juror.

The hazard of contempt under the 1981 Act possibly begins when the First Stride is taken -
an individual is captured, charged, or has a warrant or request issued against him. Common
Law Contempt covers the time before that initial step is taken however when a trial could
evidently be believed to be pending. On the off chance that a known criminal, for example,
kidnaps a gathering of individuals and a paper recognizes him and his past conviction before
he is captured or charged, or a warrant is issued then there is clearly going to be a risk of
contempt.

Under Common Law contempt, the prosecution must prove that the so-called prejudice that
has been created was originally intended by the editor. All the circumstances that lead to the
publication can be used by the court to infer intent. Any articles which can be prejudicial in
general course of administration of justice are also covered within the ambit of common law
contempt as opposed to the act which governs only individual cases.

Position under American Legal System.

An act of defiance or disrepute towards the judicial organ of the government can be termed as
contempt of court. It can be seen as a crime against the court of justice or any person who is
in charge of discharging the judicial functions.
Contempt of court is defined under volume 17 of the American Jurisprudence. It may be
classified as follows:
1. Deriding the power of the Judge or self-respect of the court;
2. Any action which may bring disregard and disrespect to the authority and administration of
law;
3. Any behavior which hinders or biases the parties to a lawsuit or their witnesses during a
litigation;
4. Any demeanor which tends to obstruct, humiliate, or hamper a court of law or a magistrate
in the discharge of its or his responsibilities;
5. A statutory definition of contempt cannot be exhaustive.

The case of Schenk v. United12 States helped to establish the doctrine of clear and present
danger which in turn protected freedom of speech in the United States of America. Certain
provisions of the military censorship and espionage act of 1917 were observed by the
Supreme Court in this case. Firm limitations were imposed by the said provisions on freedom
of speech and press. The court rejected the petitions upholding the constitutional validity of
the espionage act. Justice Holmes said “The right of speech had never been an absolute one
at any time, in peace or in war. Free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire
in a theatre and causing a panic. When a nation is at war, he added many things that might
be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be
endured so long as men fight, and no court could regard them as protected by any
Constitutional Right.”

Thus, conferring to this interpretation, in order to prove that freedom of speech could be
violated he government must establish that there was clear and present danger to the state
ascending from the exercise that freedom. This doctrine, conversely, was discarded in the
case of Dennis v. United States.13 The constitutional validity of the Alien Registration Act,
1940 was inquired upon in this case. The following was observed by Vinson C.J. “In this
case we are squarely presented with the application of the clear and present danger test and
must decide what the phrase imports.” The test for clear and probable danger has been
adopted in place of the test for clear and present danger. The factor of time has also been
disregarded from the test. According to the new test it was declared that the impugned statute
was within constitutional boundaries. However, the act of conspiring to propagate a rebellion
against the state without any apparent imminent danger was penalized. The reach of the law
12
(1919) 249 U.S. 47. The case involved an appeal from a conviction in the lower Federal Court on a charge of
circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the US armed forces. The Espionage Act made it a felony to
attempt to obstruct the enlistment in and recruiting to services of the United States or to convey false statements
with intent to interfere with military operations. Appellant’s counsel contended that the Espionage Act violated the
First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press and was unconstitutional.

13
(1951) 34 U.S. 494. The Statute made it unlawful for any person to advocate, advice or teach duty, necessity
desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the Government in the United States, by force or violence
and penalized even a conspiracy to commit such forbidden acts. The petitioners, leading members of the
Communist Party, were charged with a conspiracy to form a party for teaching and advocating the overthrow of
government by force. They contended that the statute could not stand the Constitutional test of “clear and present
danger” and that their conviction by the court below was therefore liable to be set aside.
was prolonged in this process. Undoubtedly Douglas J. complains that free speech, has been
obscured by the majority judgment in the Dennis case.

The Dennis case has technically been overruled by the Supreme Court while seeming to stick
to the alteration of the clear and present danger test in Yates v, United States.14(15) The
conviction of fourteen communists who had been booked under the provisions of the Smith
Act was set aside by the Supreme Court in the Yates case. It was held that the propagation of
rebellion against the government as an intellectual idea did not fulfil the criteria to constitute
an offence under the act. It is only when some action whether immediate of otherwise has
been initiated to that end, that the transgression under the act would be committed. The
protection to freedom of speech which had been withdrawn in the Dennis case was reinstated
to a certain degree in the Yates case. However, this assessment is not relevant in India. The
same was rejected by Justice Madhokar in 1961.15(16)

Two types of contempt, namely, Direct and indirect contempt are recognized under United
States law. When the contempt occurs outside the court and the court needs to rely on
evidence from witnesses and third parties, it is known as indirect contempt. Contempt is
direct when it happens in the presence of the court during a trial. SeeMatter of Heathcock,
696 F.2d 1362, 1365 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Peterson, 456 F.2d 1135, 1139 (10th
Cir. 1972). The fact that direct contempt must take place in presence of the court does not
mean that such contempt occurs inside a court room. The exercise of judicial duties must be
accompanied by certain degree of conventionalism which is usually found in a court room
setting. Matter of Jaffree, 741 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1984). The court may summarily decide and
punish contemptuous behaviour which occurs in the court’s presence. McGuire v. Sigma
Coatings, Inc., 48 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 1995).

A broad general principal cannot be applied to the law of contempt. A distinction has been
made between civil and criminal contempt by the courts. It becomes necessary to create such
a distinction due to variance in procedural and substantive laws applicable to civil and
criminal contempt. In the ordinary sense, criminal contempt is technically a crime, Bloom v.
Illinois16, "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the
protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings."Hicks v. Feiock.17
The following rights are included in these constitutional protections;

1. Protection against double Jeopardy, seeUnited States v. Dixon18; In re Bradley19;

2. Information about charges against accused;
3. Legal Assistance;

14
1957) U.S. 298.
15
Babu Lal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884.
16
391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968).
17
485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988).
18
509 U.S. 688, 695 (1993).
19
318 U.S. 50 (1943).
 4. Receive summary process;
5. The right to present a defense, Cooke v. United States20;
6. Right against self-incrimination;
7. Standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt, Gompers v. Bucks Stove &
Range Co.21

When the criminal contempt is serious and where the quantum of punishment exceeds six
months, the right to a jury trial is also accorded to the accused.

In contrast to the complexities of criminal contempt, civil contempt can be avoided through
obedience and compliance with the directions of the court. The sanctions under civil
contempt have been designed not to punish, but to ensure compliance with the court order in
future, and "thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an
opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is
required."International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell.22
THE INDIAN JUDICIARY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
The Press and the judicial administration share a need that is indispensible: both must have their
respective freedoms I. journalistic freedoms and legal freedom. It was further expounded “Germany
under Hitler is fresh as tomorrow in world’s memory, where, his two real strides could be review,
they being controlling the courts and wipe out an autonomous legal executive. This establishes the
value the free press and autonomous judiciary. Hence, it is realized that the autonomous/free
judiciary is indispensable.

The intensity of the Apex Court of India in managing the everyday issues of the natives has expanded
numerous a crease amid the previous couple of decades. Scruritinizing at the pages of Law Reports
and texts preceding lifting of crisis will uncover the unimportance of the courts to a vast piece of the
Indian populace. It is after the crisis phase of India Judiciary, from the 1980's that the Apex Court
completely understood its potential. The disappointment has been brought to the masses by
legislature and the bureaucracy to satisfy the desires according to the general population put the
Judiciary in a higher platform. It was viewed if all else fails for equity to the something else "equity
starved" natives of India. The Apex court of India just as different courts and jurisdictions through
out the nation has emerged a bearer of rights of rights of the poor in India for helping the
unpriviledged and the downtrodden segment odf the masses.

In any case, it was correctly this generous sight taken up by the Apex Court to investigate practically
every one of the parts of the other two organs of the system that offered ascend to reactions. The
reactions were from the general population, from the press and the media. The perspective on the
Supreme Court towards these reactions were not constantly static. It continued transforming from
the expressing that the legal executive's shoulders are wide and setting off to the next extraordinary
by rebuffing a person who had made a hatred of court. It is decisively those activity of the hatred
forces of the Supreme Court and the Indian Judiciary by and large in the course of recent decades,
that will be managed in these sections. There is no better method to take a gander at these activity

20
267 U.S. 515, 537 (1925).
21
221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911).
22
512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994)
of intensity yet to look at the decisions gone by the Supreme Court and the High Courts with respect
to this issue.

The views of the judiciary have been dynamic and everchanging when it comes to evaluation of
Contempt Law in Indian perspective. The best and most intricate way to analyse the above behavior
of the apex court, one has to look through the judgements and seek the evolution of the concerned
principle in this realm.In some of the case the supreme court has

been very cordial and said that has broad shoulders and in some others it has

One of the first and fascinating cases with respect to law of Contempt emerged in 1954. For this
situation the individuals from the Executive Committee of the District Bar Association at
Muzaffarnagar inside the territory of U.P made certain claims against a legal officer Mr. Kanhaya Lal
Mehra and a Revenue Officer Mr. Latta Prasad. A goals was passed in the gathering of the Bar
Associations that grumblings ought to be recorded to the prevalent experts against the offense of
these judges. The charges were on the whole"

1. The legal officer does not record proof or evidences in cases attempted before him
appropriately, in case of all the Criminal issues that are exchanged or transferred to the court of
law, where the suspect are as of now out on bail , he doesn't give them an opportunity to outfit new
sureties with the outcome he is sent to imprison. He isn't pleasing to legal counselor in toto.

2. The income tax and revenues officer pursues the exceedingly unlawful methodology of
leaving 2 cases at any given moment, wherein he records the proof and evidences of one case and
ask the court representative and other clerks to do as such with the other cases too. Additionally he
is exceedingly volatile and continually compromises the legal counselors with contempt of court.

3. It is currently our considered conclusion that the two officers are altogether clumsy in law,
don't rouse trust in their legal work. They state wrong certainties when passing decisions and are
oppressive and impolite to the disputant open and the attorneys alike.

The High Court observed the legal advisors to be by all appearances in disdain of court and fined
them Rs. 300/ - . The Supreme Court considered all the applicable actualities including the way that
the meeting for the above discussion was held in shut quarters. Just individuals were available, the
resolutions taken up in the meeting ,were composed by the president of the concerned Bar
Association itself and even the minutes book didn't have the record and entries regarding the details
of the meeting. In the wake of considering all the important actualities and conditions the Supreme
Court talking through Justice Mukherjee held:

"We are unfit to concur with the educated direction for the respondents that whether the portrayal
made by the appellants in the present case is determined to create these outcomes. It is to be
remembered, when assaults or remarks are made on a judge or judges, decrying in character and
censorious to their nobility care ought to be taken to recognize what is defamation on the judge and
what adds up to scorn of court. The way that an announcement is slanderous so far as the judge is
concerned does not by any stretch of the imagination make it a disdain."
IMore over the judge said that the object of portrayals and representations made by the appealing
party in the above case were not to expose the open affirmed weaknesses of the officers concerned,
the entire purpose was to have the complaint of the legal advisors and the litigating masses truly
felt. The Apex court reversed the order of the lower court and allowed the appeal in this case.
One of the great precedents for the supposed "excessive sensitivty" of the Apex Court is the
situation of “E.M.S. Namboodri v. T.N. Nambiar”. The case emerged out of a media interaction
session that the then Chief Minister E.M.S Namboodripad held. Amid the press media conference
session he made certain comments:

" Marx and Engel thought about the legal executive as an instrument of mistreatment…
Judges are guided and commanded by class contempt, class premiums and class biases and
where the proof is adjusted between a sharp looking, pot bellied rich man and a poor, badly
dressed and unskilled individual, the judge instinctually supports the previous… ..Judiciary is
a piece of the class standard of the decision class. What's more, there are breaking points to
the holiness of the legal executive. The legal executive is weighed against laborers, workers
and different areas of the average workers and the law and the arrangement of legal
executive basically serve the abusing classes."
Namboodripad was indicted by the Kerala High Court for “contempt of court” and condemned to a
fine of Rs 1000/ - . This was held in a majority decision made by Justice Raman Nair, Justice
Krishnamoorthy Iyer and with Justice Mathew disagreeing and dissentment. Namboodripad
appealed and spoke to the Supreme Court arguing:

1. His perceptions and observations did close to offer articulations to the Marxist logic and
what was contained in the program of his gathering.

2. They contained a reasonable analysis and fair criticism of the legal administration.

3. They did not contain analysis of a specific judge or his judgment or lead.

4. The law of contempt should be deciphered and interpreted in order to cause no

infringement upon the right to freedom of speech and expression ensured by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.

The judges Hidayatullah CJ, G. K. Mitter and A. N. Beam in the wake of looking profoundly into the
lessons of Lenin and Marx arrived at the resolution that no where in their works have they appeared
direct assault on the legal executive. The court landed at the end that in the entirety of their
compositions there is no notice of judges, which the litigant had made. The court further expresses
that " it is possible that he doesn't have a clue or has intentionally mutilated the compositions of
Marx. The Supreme Court consequently sentenced Namboodripad for hatred of court however
diminished the fine from Rs 1000/ - to Rs. 50/ - .

Another case which identifies with Freedom of Press and contempt of court, and as well which
offered ascend to heartfelt analysis from both inside and outside lawful circles is P. N Duda v. P.
Shivshanker. The case emerged out of an objection documented by P.N Duda against P. Shivshanker
who was the Union law serve. As indicated by the candidate the Union Law Minister had submitted
hatred of court amid discourse made by P Shivshanker on the event of the silver celebration of the
Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. Despite the fact that the discourse was routed to Judges and legal
counselors, an extensive number of press faculty were available. P. N. Duda whined around 5 entries
in his discourse. The two primary concern were:
1. The Supreme Court made out of the component from the exclusive class had their
compassion toward those who are well off for example the Zamindars. Subsequently they
deciphered the word remuneration in Article 31 as opposed to the soul and change of the
Constitution and guidelines the pay must speak to the value which an eager dealer is set up to
purchase from a purchaser. The whole program of Zamindari abrogation endured a set back. The
Constitution as corrected by the first fourteenth and seventeenth Amendments to evacuate this
oligarchic methodology of the Supreme Court with practically no assistance. At last this inflexible
reactionary and customary standpoint of property, prompted the cancelation of property as a basic
right.

2. Anti social components, for example FERA violators, lady of the hour burners and entire
crowd of reactionaries have discovered their safe house in the Supreme Court.

The hearing to the case was given by Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee and S Ranganathan. To the
greatest astonishment of everybody the Supreme Court took a liberal view. Talking through Justice
Mukherjee, the SC held that:

“there was no imminent danger of interference with administration of justice nor of bringinf a
administration into disrepute.”

It was further opined by the bench, that, In the above view the minister was not liable of contempt
of the court. The discourse of the Minister read in its legitimate point of view, did not bring the
judicial administration into unsavoriness or weaken Judiciary, however in certain bits of the
discourse language utilized could have been kept away from by the minister concerned in this case,
has he himself was a high court judge previously. The minister maybe could have accomplished his
motivation by making his language however his facts dangerous. The appeal was dismissed.

There are other courts also in Indian legal paradigm who have taken cognizance of the instances of
contempt, other than supreme court. A large number of the High Courts have additionally done
likewise. As of late the Delhi High Court came into the spotlight in the following case of the " Wah
India"23 . The case emerged out of the distribution by the distributers of a magazine by the name of
Wah India ! on their site, the aftereffects of an implied overview reviewing the judges of Delhi High
Court. The case had arisen out of the publication where the publishers of the above magazine
conducted a survey, the results of the survey were based on a grading done by the fifty of the senior
members of the Delhi Bar association, the given survey was presented in a manner in which the five
columns namely, ‘knowledge of law’, ‘quality of judgements’, ‘personal integrity’ ,the photograph of
each and every judge was distributed for the purpose of such grading process. The disclaimer was
put stating that the intention of the publication was not tarnish the image of any of the Judges or
judicial administration. The distribution was titled " Judged out" and it likewise guaranteed that the
review is in no way, shape or form an endeavor to cast any defamation on the capability of the legal
executive, yet is a little and humble endeavor to expect a mirror to remember. It may make a few
Judges awkward, however reality some of the time does.

23
Cited in Madhavi Divan, The Law of criminal contempt:time to move on,The Lawyers Collective, March 2001
at 8.
The Delhi High Court passed a request summarily coordinating the appropriation of the unsold
duplicates/copies of the issue of the news magazine, they also banned its flow and requested the
media not to distribute whatever would bring down the expert, respect and eminence of the
individuals from the legal and judicial administration. The following day the court lifted the
prohibition on revealing of the disdain procedures and coordinated that the detailing must be
reasonable and exact24. Be that as it may, the court let the distributers off after the acknowledgment
of a conciliatory sentiment by the distributer Rahul Mishra, editorial manager Madhu Trehan and
three writers.

Another case that surfaced under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court as of late was Re: S K
Sundaram. The case emerged out of a suo motu act of the Supreme Court. A Chennai based
advocate had sent messages and letters to the then CJ of India Dr. A.S Anand, requesting his
abdication on the ground that the he had surpassed the period of superannuation. In three days of
sending the wire, he documented a criminal complaint against the CJ under the IPC, 1860 asserting
bamboozling, criminal breach of trust and misrepresentation of records, that Dr. Anand had usurped
the workplace of Chief Justice of India and 'made misfortune the exchequer to the tune of Rs. 3
Crores'. The solicitor who had recently documented a mandamus seeking for the president of India
to check the period of Dr. Anand, claimed that he was impelled without hesitation by an article that
showed up in The Hindu on 3-11-2000, distributing an announcement by Ram Jethmalani and an
annexure distributed in the book " Big Egos Small Men".

The Supreme Court for this situation held that 'well in the event that he is resolved to sign that he
would not take a gander at any of those material just as a ultimate choice rendered by the President
with respect to the period of Dr. Anand, and after that chose to steadily bounce into the attack with
the tirade, placing himself into the outfit and chasuble of his confirmation emblem, it is just
reminiscent of the Spanish beneficiary Don Quiescent of La Mancha.

With respect to this court, we may see that if the contemnor had ceased with his wire we would
have convinced ourselves to overlook its as an instance of fuming garbage. Be that as it may, when
he lined it up with hotel of a criminal grievance under the steady gaze of a criminal court in which
the Chief Justice of India was showed as a blamed having carried out the offense for conning,
criminal break of trust and distortion of records we understood that he truly intended to censure
and undermine the respect and specialist of this court. Sundaram was sent to a half year
detainment.

The latest just as the most dubious one was Arundhati Roy, In Re. The actualities of this case
emerged from a previous case Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Association of India. While the case was
pending under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court Mrs. Arundhati Roy composed an article " The
Greater Common Good" which was distributed in standpoint and Frontline magazines. Two of the
judges of the Supreme Court found that the remarks made by her were, by all appearances, a
deception of the procedures of the Court. The Court demonstrated its discontent " we are miserable
at the route chiefs of NBA and Mrs. Arundhati Roy have endeavored to undermine the pride of the

24
The Indian Express,2nd May 2001.
court. We anticipated better conduct from them. Yet, the court let the issue lie in the bigger
enthusiasm of the issues pending before them. In any case, on 30-12-2000 Mrs. Arundhati and Mrs.
Medha Patkar drove an immense challenge rally before the Supreme Court and yelled damaging
mottos at the court. They additionally assaulted the candidates to passes judgment on R Parashar
promoter and others. Subsequently they documented a request expressing that Mrs. Arundhati Roy
is liable of disdain of court. In addition the respondent likewise expressed in her oath; " in light of
the fact that judges of the Supreme Court are excessively occupied, the CJ of India would not enable
a sitting Judge to head the legal enquiry into the Tehelka Scandal…

However with regards to a foolish, abhorrent altogether unconfirmed request in which all the three
respondents happen to be individuals, who have openly however in uniquely extraordinary ways
scrutinized the strategies of the Government and seriously condemned an ongoing judgment of the
Supreme Court, the court shows an irritating eagerness to issue take note. It shows a troubling
tendency with respect to the court to quiet analysis and gag contradict, to bother and threaten the
individuals who can't help contradicting it. By engaging a request dependent on a FIR that even a
nearby police headquarters does not want to follow up on, the Supreme Court is doing its own
notoriety and believability significant mischief. The Bench including Justice G. B. Patnaik and R. P.
Sethi enabled her to withdraw her averments. In any case, she held fast.

CONTEMPT AND INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

The court held that "A reasonable analysis of the lead of a judge the organization of the legal
executive and its working may not add up to disdain whenever made in accordance with some basic
honesty and in open intrigue. To find out the great confidence and the open intrigue, the courts
need to see all the encompassing conditions including the individual, his insight in the field and the
planned outcome. All residents can't be allowed to remark upon the direct of the courts for the sake
of reasonable analysis which if not checked would obliterate the organization itself.

Increasingly over the Supreme Court expressed these can't go under the exemption of P. N. Duda v.
Shiv Shanker , the court held that "it might be seen that the analysis of the legal framework was
made by an individual who himself had been the judge of the High Court and was the Minister at the
applicable time. He had made investigations about the framework and communicated his
suppositions which, considering the present situation was held to be not disparaging in spite of the
way that the court found than in some part of the discourse the language utilized could have been
maintained a strategic distance from by the Minister having the foundation of being a previous
judge." The court here found that Mrs. Roy was without any exceptional information of law and
subsequently was fined Rs. 2000/ - .