Article 129 declares that the supreme court as a “Court of record” and that it shall have all the

powers of
a court of record including the power to punish for its contempt of itself. Article 142(2) empowers the
Supreme Court to investigate and punish for any contempt of itself i.e. contempt of Supreme court of
itself. Contempt in law means being disobedient to a court of law or towards it ruling. The recognition of
contempt of court and to punish for contempt is essential for a nation such as India which is based on
the concept of rule of law, which requires supremacy of law, since the judiciary is considered, as the last
bastion of hope and justice for the citizens of any nation.

Civil contempt [Section 2(b)]

According to section 2(b), civil contempt means wilful disobedience of any judgement or a decree of a
court or a willful breach of any undertaking given to a court. The definition of civil contempt is simple
enough for a reasonable man with ordinary prudence to conclude as to what action will constitute civil
contempt. Determination of civil contempt is objective and is not based on the subjective understanding
of anyone. If there is a judicial order and if such order has been willfully disobeyed then that fact of
disobedience will constitute civil contempt.

Criminal contempt [Section 2©]

Section 2© defined criminal contempt as the publication of any matter which either Scandalizes or
lowers the authority of the court, or that such matter interferes or prejudices any judicial proceeding,
Interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner. Further, an act or publication will
constitute contempt if it even tends to scandalize the authority of the court or it tends to interfere with
any judicial proceeding or administration of justice. The expression “scandalizes the authority of court”
depends to a great degree on the discretion of the judge as no law in India has defined what constitutes
scandalizing the court. Proceeding for criminal contempt has been initiated against citizens even for
criticizing the Judges of Supreme court and high courts.

Role of ethics: As stated earlier, the determination of what constitutes criminal contempt is very
subjective and overly-broad. Law is said to be overly-broad when its language is such that it restricts
even speech that is and should be constitutionally protected like free speech, legitimate criticism. There
are no specific rules or circumstances which could justify criminal contempt.According to Fali S Nariman
“Criminal contempt has fallen into disuse in most of the civilised countries around the world, but not in
India”.The legal profession Is a noble profession and advocates are considered as officers of the court
and the nobility of the legal profession is ensured by complying with the code of conduct laid down by
the Advocate’s Act.Chapter 2 Part V of the Bar Council of India rules provides the code of ethics which is
to be followed by advocates. A part of the rules deals with the Advocate’s duty towards the court. For
the purpose of this article rules which are important include:

Advocate has to keep in mind the dignity of the judge.It is the duty of the advocate to perform his
function in such a manner that due to his acts the honour and integrity of the court are not
affected.According to Chief Justice Marshall, the fundamental aim of Legal ethics is to maintain the
honour and dignity of the law profession.However, what acts constitute to mar the dignity of courts and
judges is not specified and this has been criticized by many imminent lawyers. A fundamental question
arises, whether criticizing the judge in his personal capacity amounts to an act, which is against the
ethics of the legal profession and scandalizes the authority of the court.

Punishment for contempt of court

Article 129 and 215 empower the Supreme court and the High courts to punish its
contempt.Accordingly, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for punishment for
contempt of court. It incorporates the type and extent of punishment which the courts can give for
contempt.According to section 12 contempt may be punished either by simple imprisonment of 6
months or a fine of Rs. 2000 or both. The further section makes it clear that the punishment for
contempt cannot exceed the 6-month imprisonment and fine of Rs 2000. Thus this is the maximum
punishment which the courts can give for contempt.Further section 12 also states that imprisonment
should only be imposed if it is necessary to do in the interest of justice. In Smt. Pushpaben and another
vs. Narandas V. Badiani and another3 the supreme court said that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
confers special power on the court to impose imprisonment and the court must give a special reason
with a proper application of mind while giving a sentence of imprisonment. It further said that the
Sentence of a fine is the rule while imprisonment is an exception.In the Supreme Court bar association v.
Union of India said that for imposing imprisonment, the contempt has to be serious enough and that it
must consider the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice. Culpability of the
offender and that the intention for the act of contempt is a crucial factor while considering
imprisonment as punishment for contempt.Further according to section 10 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, the High courts have the jurisdiction and authority to punish for the contempt of courts
subordinate to it as well.