professional ethics

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court definition

“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.”This definition is given by Lord Diplock when he
was giving the judgment in the case of Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers
Ltd. [1]

This term Contempt of Court can be easily understood as when we are

disrespectful or disobedience towards the court of law which means that we
wilfully fail to obey the court order or disrespect the legal authorities. Then the
judge has the right to impose sanctions such as fines or can send the contemnor
to jail for a certain period of time if he is found guilty of Contempt of Court.

This term can also be understood in terms of the freedom of limits of the judicial
proceeding. As we know that all judges in courts can give judicial proceedings
which have a certain limit in which it has the freedom to make any judicial
proceeding and anything which curtails or stops it in making any judicial
proceeding which is of necessity can amount to contempt of court.

Halsbury, Oswald, and Black Odgers have also given the definition of Contempt
of Court and in addition to that, they have talked about its misuse and its wrong
interpretation and also its broad prospectus.

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) .

Essentials of Contempt of Court

pg. 1
 professional ethics

If a person named Akash has to prove that the other person named Sita is guilty
of committing an act which is an offence in a court of law. Then he has to show
the court that the offence which Sita has done is fulfilling the essential required
to commit that act or not. If the essentials of that will be fulfilled then he will be
liable for that act. Similarly, every offence has certain exceptions that has to be
fulfilled for making the person liable for doing that act. Contempt of Court also
has certain essentials and these are as follows:

1. Disobedience to any type of court proceedings, its orders, judgment,

decree, etc should be done ‘willfully’ in case of Civil Contempt.
2. In Criminal Contempt ‘publication’ is the most important thing and
this publication can be either spoken or written, or by words, or by
signs, or by visible representation.
3. The court should make a ‘valid order’ and this order should be in
‘knowledge’ of the respondent.
4. The action of contemnor should be deliberate and also it should be
clearly disregard of the court’s order.
These essentials should be fulfilled while making someone accused of Contempt
of Court.

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
Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states Civil Contempt as wilful
disobedience to the order, decree, direction, any judgment or writ of the Court
by any person or willfully breach of undertakings by a person given to a Court.
Since Civil Contempt deprives a party of the benefit for which the order was
made so these are the offences essential of private nature. In other words, a
person who is entitled to get the benefit of the court order, this wrong is
generally done to this person.

There is a case on the willful disobedience of the court order which a person
should know.

Utpal Kumar Das v. Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup [3]

pg. 2
 professional ethics

This is the case of non-rendering of assistance, although the court has ordered
to render assistance. Decree executed by the court to deliver immovable
property but because of certain obstruction, the defendant failed to do so.
Hence, he was held liable for constituting disobedience to the orders of the
competent Civil Court.

Defences to Civil Contempt

A person who is accused of Civil Contempt of case can take the following
defences:

 Lack of Knowledge of the order: A person can not be held liable for
Contempt of Court if he does not know the order given by the court or
he claims to be unaware of the order. There is a duty binding on the
successful party by the courts that the order that has passed should be
served to the Individual by the post or personally or through the
certified copy. It can be successfully pleaded by the contemner that the
certified copy of the order was not formally served to him.

 The disobedience or the breach done should not be : If someone

is pleading under this defence then he can say that the act done by
him was not done willfully, it was just a mere accident or he/she can
say that it is beyond their control. But this plead can only be successful
if it found to be reasonable otherwise your plead can be discarded.

 The order that has disobeyed should be vague or ambiguous: If

the order passed by the court is vague or ambiguous or this order is
not specific or complete in itself then a person can get the defence of
contempt if he says something against that order. In R.N. Ramaul v.
State of Himachal Pradesh [5], this defence has been taken by the
respondent. In this case, the Supreme Court has directed the
corporation of the respondent to restore the promotion of the petitioner
from a particular date in the service. But the respondent has not
produced the monetary benefit for the given period and a complaint
was filed against him for Contempt of Court. He pleads for the defence
on the given evidence that it has not mentioned by the court in order to
pay the monetary benefit. Finally, he gets the defence.
 Orders involve more than one reasonable interpretation: If the
contempt of any order declared by the court and the order seems to be
given more than one reasonable and rational interpretation and the
respondent adopts one of those interpretations and works in accordance
with that then he will not be liable for Contempt of Court.
 Command of the order is impossible: If compliance of the order is
impossible or it can not be done easily then it would be taken as a
defence in the case of Contempt of Court. However, one should
differentiate the case of impossibility with the case of mere difficulties.

pg. 3
 professional ethics

Because this defence can be given only in the case of the impossibility of
doing an order.

Criminal Contempt
According 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
gesture, or by signs, or by visible representation or (ii) doing of any act which
includes:

1. a) Scandalize or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the

authority of any court, or
2. b) Biasness, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any
type of Judicial proceedings, or
3. c) obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or tend to interfere with the
administration of justice in any manner.
Case on Scandalizing the Court:

Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh [6]

In this case an advocate caste derogatory and scandalous attack on the judge of
the High Court. An application was filed an election petitioner in the High Court,
who was an advocate. He wanted to seek to stay for further arguments in an
election petition and also the transfer of election petitions. These things cause
an attack on the judicial proceeding of the High Court and had the tendency to
scandalize the Court. It was held in this case that it was an attempt to intimidate
the judge of the High Court and cause an interface in the conduct of a fair trial.

Punishment for Contempt of Court

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the punishment for
Contempt of Court. High Court and the Supreme Court have been given the
power to punish someone for the Contempt of Court. Section 12(1) of this Act
states that a person who alleged with the Contempt of Court can be punished
with simple imprisonment and this imprisonment can extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or can be of both type
punishment. However, an accused may be discharged or the punishment that
was awarded to him maybe remitted on the condition that if he makes an
apology and this apology should satisfy the court then only he can be exempted
from the punishment of Contempt of Court. Explanation of this sentence is that
if the accused made an apology in the bona fide then this apology shall not be
rejected on the round that it is conditional or qualified.

pg. 4
 professional ethics

The court can not impose a sentence for Contempt of Court in excess of what is
prescribed under the given section of this Act either in respect of itself or of a
court subordinate to it.

Remedies against an order of

Punishment
Section 13 has been added in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 after amendment
in 2006. The new Act may be called The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act,
2006. This Section tells that contempt of court cannot be punished under certain
circumstances or certain cases.

Clause (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states
that no Court under this Act shall be punished for Contempt of Court unless it is
satisfied that the Contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or
tend to substantially interfere with the due course of Justice.

Clause (b) of Section 13 of this Act states that the court may give the defence
on the justification of truth if it finds that the act done in the public interest and
the request for invoking that defence is bona fide.

Contempt Proceedings
Two Sections of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the procedure of
Contempt proceeding. One talks about the proceeding in the face of the court of
records and other talks about the proceedings other than the court of records.

Section 14 of the Contempt of Court deals with the procedure of contempt

proceeding in the face of the court of record whereas Section 15 of this Act
deals with the procedure of the contempt proceeding outside the court of
records.

These courts of record have got the power to punish for its contempt inherently.
Therefore, these courts of record can deal with the matter of content by making
their own procedure. While exercising the contempt jurisdiction by the courts of
record the only case to be observed is that the procedure adopted must be fair
and reasonable in which the alleged contemnor should be given full opportunity
to defend himself. If the specific charge against the person who is punished for
the contempt is distinctly stated and he is given a reasonable opportunity to
answer and to defend himself against the charge then only he will be liable for
contempt of court and the court proceeding runs against him. Where the person
charged with contempt under this section applies whether orally or in writing to

pg. 5
 professional ethics

have the charge against him, tried by some judge other than the judge or judges
in whose presence or hearing the contempt is alleged to have been committed
and the court is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice that
the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be transferred
before such judge as the Chief Justice may think fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case or placed before the Chief Justice with the statement
of facts of the case.

Contempt committed outside the court

Criminal Contempt rather than Civil Contempt committed outside the
Court. Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the notice of
Criminal Contempt by Court of Record such as the Supreme Court and the High
Court. Following manners can be taken by the Supreme Court and the High
Court for cognizance of the Criminal Contempt:

1. On the motion of court of records.

2. On the motion of the Advocate General of the Supreme Court and the
High Court.
3. If any person proceeds the motion with the consent of the Advocate
General in writing.
4. If the law officer who is related to the High Court for the Union Territory
of Delhi as the Central Government notify proceeds the motion. Then it
can be considered as contempt committed outside the court.
Section 15(2) of this Act states that in the criminal contempt of the subordinate
court, the high court may take certain actions in the manner given in this Act.

Contempt by a Company
In case any person is found guilty of contempt of court for any undertaking
given to a court while he is a member of the company. Then the person who at
that time was in charge of that company will be responsible for the conduct of
the business of that company and shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt.
The punishment may be enforced by the detention in the civil prison of such
person with the leave of the court

However, that person can be free from liability if such person proves that the
contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all possible
means to prevent its commission.

pg. 6
 professional ethics

Liability of officer of the company

If the contempt of court has been committed by a company and it is provided
that the contempt has been committed with the consent of, or is attributable to
any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officers of
the company, then such persons shall also be deemed to be guilty of the
contempt and the punishment will be enforced against them by the detention in
civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer with the leave of
the court.

Contempt by the third party to the proceeding

If a third party has a part to play in the offence then the third party to the
offence may be guilty of contempt of court and proceeding can initiate against
him. In LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagles Homes Pty Ltd [7] Lindgren J stated:

“It is not necessary to show that a person who has breached the order of the
court can be liable for contempt of court but the only necessary thing to confirm
his liability for contempt is to show that the person knew of the order which was
breached.”

In another case of M/S. Gatraj Jain & Sons v. Janakiraman [8] it has been stated
about the third party to the proceeding that if a third party to the contempt
petition found to be wilfully disobeying the court order then he cannot prevent
the court from restoring the status quo.

Criminal contempt and criminal defamation

proceedings
A question has been asked by the person that can an action for criminal
contempt and criminal defamation initiated simultaneously. This can be
understood by knowing the concept of Criminal contempt and criminal
defamation. Earlier, in this article, we have talked about Criminal Contempt. But
for an overview, we should know what does a criminal contempt mean.
According 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, or by signs, or by visible representation or (ii) doing of any act which
includes:

1. a) Scandalize or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the

authority of any court, or

pg. 7
 professional ethics

2. b) Biasness, interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any

type of Judicial proceedings, or
3. c) obstructs or tends to obstruct, interfere or tend to interfere with the
administration of justice in any manner.
Now, we will know the concept of criminal defamation.

The definition of criminal defamation has been given under Section 499 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. It states about defamation that “Whoever, by words
either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to
defame that person.”

There are certain exceptions of criminal defamation and these are:

1. If the publication of anything is in truth and for public good then it

cannot be treated as defamation.
2. When a person touches any public questions then for that he cannot be
liable.
3. If the publication is of the reports of the proceedings of the court.
As the right to reputation is an important facet of the right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, hence, the aim of
the criminal defamation is to prevent a person from maligning harming the
reputation of others by using absurd or malign words with malafide intentions.

In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Law
and Ors. [9] the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation was upheld.

Conclusion
The existing role relating to ex facie contempt of lower courts is unsatisfactory
and misleading in India. It appears that evidently, the difficulties in this regard
are the after product of 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 has emerged 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

pg. 8
 professional ethics

the judges, higher judicial officials seems good but if it comes to the perspective
of common people it turns towards its bad effect.

pg. 9