held that there is significant cuntro1'by clients over the advocate inforcing the idea that their relationsh' )

s, re ---- 1\1
is based on a contract of personal service.
~ .
T h ~ h a d relied on the landmark Indian Medic · ·
al Association v. V.P.
· · Shantha (1995 . ). judgeinent,
where doctors were held accountable under the CPA. The
The Court opined that the earlier Judgment in
Supreme Court in D.K. Gandhi questioned this precedent,
Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha_(1995),
· a review
suggest mg · of V.P. Shantha, which
· cou ld po tent'ia ll Y wh' h h Id doctors accountable ·under tfie
1c . e . CPA
·
lead to doctors also being excluded from the CPA's pu~ie . should be reconsidered. The bench requested that'
w the Chief Justice ofl~dia refer V.P. Shantha for
in the future . The bench's decision was grounded in the idea
review by a larger bench, potentially excluding
that the relationship between a client and an advocafe
doctors from the CPA's scope just as advocates
resembles that of a master-servan{, which excludes advocates
were in this case.
from being covered by the CPA. L.. .:= == --- --- --- --- -'
In V.P. Shantha, the Court had made a clear distinction between
a "contract for services" (where professionals
exercise independence) and a "contract of service" (where one
party is subject to control by another). The
D.K. Gandhi bench, however, revisited this distinction, relyin
g on the Dharangadhra Chemical Works Lt~ v.
State of Saurashtra (1957) judgement, and argued that clients exerci
se considerable control over advocates,
thus classifying their relationship as a "contract of service." This
reasoning has been criticized for overstating
the extent of client control, as advocates often retain significant
professional discretion, much like doctors.
The D.K. Gandhi judgement ha§ been criticized for ignoring key
legislative intent. The CPA 's amendments,
including the addition of services like telecom, demonstrate that
the Act was not meant to be exclusionary, as
s':!_ggested by the Court. Moreover, in V.P. Shantha, the Court had
already clarified that doctors could fall under
the CPA, despite being subject to professional disciplinary contro
ls, an aspect that was overlooked in D.K.
~ i . The decision also ~uggested that professional services
like those offered by advocates and doctors ~e
inherently outside the CPA's purview, even though professions
like journalism are explicitly included. The
bench expressed concern t!_iat bringing all professionals under
the CPA could lead to a flood of litig ~ut
this argument was not supported with evidence. More troubling
was the suggestion to review V.P. Shantha, as
it could undo years of established jurisprudence holding profes
sionals acco?ntable for deficiencies in service.
Cases like Najrul Seikh v Dr. Sumit Banerjee (2024) and
a 2013 Supreme Court judgement on medical
negligence had expanded the reach of V.P. Shantha to hold
medical professionals liable for professional
misconduct, all of which now faces uncertainty due to the D.K.
Gandhi ruling . ---

MODULE IV -BAR-BENCH RELATIONSIDP

Contempt or Criticism?
Contempt is a feeling of disdain or scorn for something that is
considered mean, vile, or worthless. It can also
mean the state of being despised, dishonoured, or disgraced. Conte
mpt can also mean behaviour that is illeg_al
because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.
It here in the context of the court refers to the
\ iso eymg, owermg authority, e amin and disres ectin the
court.
For its regulation we have Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
Contempt of court seeks to protect judicial
institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism,
and as a legal mechanism to punish those who
lower its authority. Fair and accurate reporting of judicial procee
dings will not amount to contempt of court.
Nor is any fair criticism on the merits of a judicial order after
a case is heard and 'disposed of.
Kinds of Contempt of Court:
0 Civil Contempt: It is the wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to
a court. Under Se~tion_ 2(b) of the Act of
1971, Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience to any judgm
ent, deci::e, drrechon,__or~:~ -~r-~t~~~
12 IP age
 . d 1· dalize or
w he re as cr im in al co n te mpt . 1ves actions th t
m vo a sc an a 1z e or tend to scan '
of a court, co u t E ·
essestend to lower the authority o f any r · xamples o f civ"1/ ~on temp t mcltLde : •
~c O r c d - . h. b fu
financial re or s wit m30 d do so
J> l ,er er ed to tum over ay s ut re ses to
~~ -/ /O ~A partY o rd
ort but fails -to do so
J?
;o ""
part y
Con
ord er
te m
ed
p t:
to
It
~ay child supp
1s th
f
e publication o any matter or the do 1 gO an·y ot· ·er
i 1
f
.
f h ac t w hi
·· scandahs· es or
ch
dinl!, or obstru
cts
/1 iittinal
.
y co ur t · t ,(',
s w ith the d O any JUd1c1al procee
an re
ection 2(c) of the
f f<.
wers the autho
1.,/', • rity o , r m er1e
O ue course . nd er S
0
th t· . t he re . U
1o 1"ustice an y o er manne r Pub r importan
:-ministration of - · bl. ica. 10n 1s written ' or by
m·

_ e.-ad :- - ~ - = = ~ ~ ~ ds spoken or
th .::~ - :-
' ::;.==ma1 contempt" mea - ns th he th er by w or
' other act whatsoever
97111~'~
-=-:o-:;f-1;0- cn m e pu icat10n (w g o f any
Act . • ) f the do in
b ·s1"bl e representation ' or oth erwise o any matter or
.
signs, or y v1
W hIC -
.h
· or 1owers or tends to lo w er th e au t~ ority of, any cour
t; or
r
I
I

al is es or te nd s to sc andal1s e, se o f an y ju di ci al proceeding; o
scan. d . . e due cour ice
or te nd s to interfere with , th ct , th e ad m in istration o fjust
mterf er es tends to obst ru
~reJudices, or e w ith , or obstructs or
nds to in te rf er
~nterferes or te er ement o f
m any other m ann
' 1) , th e pe ti ti on er sought enforc
v. Union o fIndi
a & Ors. (201 e Government
oflndia in
t Si ng h B it ta tr od uc ed by th
aninderji ch had been in mber plates
In the case o f M P la te s (H S N P) scheme, whi e re qu ir ed standardized nu
ity Numbe r ty. The sche m the central
the High Secur en tif ic at io n and public safe sp ite cl ea r directives from
e vehicle id
to implement it
de
to regulate vehi
cle
2001 to enhanc l stat es fa ile d go ve rn m en t
features, but, se
vera
in March 2001
by the qmtral bedded
with security e w as no tif ie d iu m -b as ed ho logram and em
he HSNP schem in g a chrom improve
government. T ta m pe r- pr oo f features , includ to pr ev en t ve hicle theft and
across India w ith were intended igence in
pumber plates as si s nu m be rs . These plates sh ow ed re lu ctance or negl
engine and ch es tes
details such as pi te be in g m andated, the stat oc ia tio n o f R egistration Pla
ent capab!h t1es
. Des by the Ass heme's
Jaw enforcem 20 03 , a w ri t petition was filed rt , cl ea ri ng th e way for the sc
the scheme. By Supreme Cou
implementing w hi ch w as dismissed by the
tender proc es s,
iation, highligh
ting
challenging the Se cu ri ty A ss oc
otor Vehicles tor states
jmplementation
.
w as fil ed by the All-India M T he C ou rt is sued a d1rect1ve
r wi;it petitio n ya . not
In 2005, anothe cl ud in g H ar ya na and Meghala fo un d th at m any states had
, in il 2011 , it w as
by various states However, by Apr fering them an
additional
non-compliance in si x m on th s. d of fi ci al s, of
entation with on the concerne states based
to begin implem e C ou rt then called up th e C ou rt to classi fy the

I
ess. The Su pr em om pt in g states.
initiated the proc , pr og re ss re m ained minimal, pr s ag ai ns t th e non -comp liant
y. _Despite this pt proceeding
chance to compl e an d co ns id er initiating contem
complianc scheme.
on their level of ns id er ed by the Court w
ere:
pl em en ta (i on of the HSNP
es co nsions for th e im
The primary issu grant further exte negligence.
h ethe r th e C ou rt sh ou ld
ns titut ed inte ntional default or co ur t due to failure
in
I
y 'W of fi ci al s co nt em pt o f
tion of state liable for co
/ Whether the inac rt A ut ho rity of Haryana was
ns po
r the State Tra 'e ount.ed to
✓ Whethe th e sc he m e. y an d in ac tio n by state authori'ti s am d
impl em en tin g lo n ed dela e w a · t m the
ou rt ex am in ed whether the ro e C ou rt no te d that the schem s m rootor
M
uced ;-; --,...
The · Supreme C rts A ct, I97 I. Th d 41(6) of th e
pt of C ou ns 41 (3 ) an V eh ic les
the Contem . der Sectio b .
contem.pt under . . l lementat,on was mandato un t to issue directives t at must e strictly foll owed
d 1t~ lll
public interest , an sections empower the centra l overnmen h b
. T he se . . . .ial legal challen es to the sche me ac. e n reso Iv ed 2004 '
1t
Act , 1988 -ourt emphasized that the.m ile d t
o act u r over seven ears. The
C . dili ence and fa
by the states. The • udm · g Har ana exhibited. a lack of as willful 1. th si ht .
, mcl
but several states d this. dela unacceptable, m terpreting it neg igence rather an mere over
un rt d
. ns from the Cou , emonstrating a ac of genu I k in e m' t
Supreml! Cou. rt fo • at1o • ns or extensio e n tt o
t se ek cl an fic
The states did no ders.
or
comply with the

1 3 IP a g c
The Court held that the ~ctions
under the Contempt of Courts Ac
. . · th
..
(or ~a~llons) of t~e state au ·1~rities amounted to c1v1\ contempt, as defin~
ful disobedience of a court ord
ti
s
~~-

~~- ~s d.
>$ § .f
(

'-' ~ ,
t. C1v1\ contempt mvolves WI er or judgme1~ 't
and the Supreme Co·urt found the
behavior ofthe State Transp ort Authority of Haryana an d Is ·t ffi ·
o 1cia1s to tit
'
this description. The Court rejecte
d arguments that the delay was · t fon
umn en 1 al or that t I1e states ha d genuin .
ely
relied on legal advice, noting the h . . .
knowledgeable status and respon ·bility of the state aut ont1es . 1 1 - .
this fmding, the ~upreme Court si . J1 me with
· imposed fines on the respons1"bl ffi · \ includmg the Secretary
·
and the Commissioner of the Sta e o 1c1 a s, of Tra nsport
te Transport Authonty · fH
o ary ana . Each official was fined <2,000 . __,
provision for impnso· nm · , with a
ent m case of non-payment. Add. · \I th state was ord
cost of <50,000 to the Suprem 1t1o na Y, _e_ _ _ ere d to pay an
_ _--: ----:--;----:- -.--- exe mp~lary
e Court Legal Servic · es · ee. Th. enalty was inte
· Co mr rutt is P nde d not onl
pumshment but also as a deterr
ent, emphas1z · mg
· the · f ect . y. .as•. a
matters of public safety. importa nce o resp ing cou rt ord ers and pnontlzmg
.
The ruling reaffirmed the judicia
ry's role in holding government
for strict enforcement of court authorities accountabl~ and set
orders related ta public welfare. a ?recedept
state authorities in implementing It emphasized that inaction or
schemes of public importance negligence by
would be met with strict penalti would not be tolerated, and suc
es to uphold the rule oflaw. h conduct

The case of R.K. Anand v. Registr

ar, Delhi High Court (i009) pri
focusing on the professional mis marily concerns criminal contem
conduct of R.K. Anand, a senior pt of court,
infamous BMW hit-and-run inc criminal lawyer. The case emerg
ident, where a high-profile acc ed from the
influential parties. During the tria ident led to a criminal trial inv
olving several
!? influence Sunil Kulkarni, a keyl, aprostinsecg utio
operation conducted by NDTV
n witness, offering inducements
revealed that R.K. Ana~d attemp
ted
action was captured on video to weaken his testimony. This
and later aired publicly. The stin
between R.K. Anand (defense g operation, aired in 2007, exp
counse l) and 1 U Khan (special osed collusion
e~gaging in discussions aimed public prosecutor). Both lawyer
at influencing the testimony of s were seen
judicial process. Following the the witness, compromising the
broadcast, the Delhi High Court inte grity of the
initiating contempt proceedings took suo motu cognizance of
against both advocates for attemp the issue,
·The primary issue in this case ting to obstruct justice.
was wh~ther the conduct of the
the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 lawyers amounted to criminal
1. Criminal contempt includes contempt under
judicial proceedings, or obstru actions that scandalize the cou
ct the administration of justice rt, prejudice
behavior met this definition, par . The Court had to determine
ticularly considering the eviden if the lawyers'
Th~ Delhi High Court and late ce from the sting operation.
r the Supreme Court analyzed -
evidence of unethical conduct the sting operation's footage and
by R.K. Anand. The Court hig fou nd clear
justice system, not undermine hlighted that a lawyer's duty is
it. The act of attempting to ma to uph old the
judicial process, thus constitutin nipulate a witness directly inte
g criminal contempt. R.K. Anand rfe res wit h the
professional ethics, as they com 's actions were deemed a seriou
promised the mtegrity of the tria s breach of
The Supreme Court upheld the l and the administration of justice
Delhi High Court's decision, con .
R.K. Anand was debarred from firming the conviction for crim
practicing law for four months, ina l contemQ!.
Court emphasized that while adv and his advocate' s license was
ocates have certain privileges, suspended. The
· with the justice system. The rul these do not extend to actions
ing underscored that the conduc that interfere
standards and that any attempt t of legal professionals must alig
to subvert judicial proceedings n with ethical
The case set an important preced would face strict penalties.
ent tor mamtammg the ethical
·the principle that lawyers, as conduct of legal professionals.
officers of the court, must not It' reaffirmed
law. The Supreme Court's dec eng age in behavior that undermine
ision hig hted that contempt s the rule of
imd decorum of the ·udiciar , and strihlig jurisdiction is crucial for preser
n ent action is necessary when ving the dignity
serves as a deterrent against une such misconduct occurs. This
thical practices by legal practit ruling
safeguarding the integrity of leg ioners an rem orces e JU 1ci
.- al proceeding. ary 's role in
·
14 IP ag e
 in e, o the
a,f's co11tempt petition concem 0 th e OmkaresJiwar
Dam submergenc
o And o/ ·.
Ja 9ac/1a
the petition brouol
t.,b .~t11e act1.v1st oroup Tl petit..10n caI nn· ed non-compliance
, rt dismissed ~ Y _ . ie
_ou er ni ng
b'
the reh b'I •ltat1.on and com t' f d' aced residents affected by the
~ r t or de rs co nc a I pensa io n° ispl
i c ergenc e. -
;truction and subm ◄ • rity (NVDA)
- ff ic ie nt !!f ou nd s t0 I1 Id 1 m ad a V al le y D evelopment Autho
insu N ar
:me Court found ~ tak 0 t 1e .
m pe ns ation and rehabilit
ation
h the NV D A ha d st
en eps to compl
y w ith th e co
e Court
pt. Itobservedr t at. d -
ce of de lib er at e disobedience. Th
..., th c evid en
e e~ •~ ~ u . ments and the
~ t~er comp ex1hes mvolved in imp! emen mg 1arge-scale rehabilitation proiects an t· d acknowledged
e e . . .
. , go m g ef forts. pl ia nc e with
m ty s on to co m
d' d' atm . cases related
co re d th e challe n,O.,es m •
a 1u 1c g contempt . The judgment
cision un. de rs
d lo gi st ic al di ff iculties often arise
· tive dela ys an against state
t pr oJ ec t or de rs , where administra n in vo ki ng co nt empt jurisdiction
~en defiance whe
th need for concrete _proof of willful
~ed e
ties
rt Act e balance
on th e E xi st en ce of Contempt of Cou es t sti ll co nt in ues to strike a fin
e old law, but the qu mprisable
nt em pt is no w a!?1ost a century ist ra tio n of ju st ic e' and 'the non-co
iw of co courts and admin stitution of
ne ed to up ho ld the majesty of the te ed by A rti cl e 19(1)(a) of the Con
:en 'the ected and guaran 19(2) of the
ta l rig ht to fre ed om of speech prot rd in g to th e pr ov isions of Article
imen strictions" acco
ec t of co ur se to "reasonable re
.', su bj ished
of ln di a. th e co nt em pt la ws have been abol
3titution nialism in India as
d to be re m in isc ent ofBritish colo
It is criticize gement on
e U ni te d K in gd om itself ra ise co nc er ns ab out potential infrin
from th ntempt laws ofte n
ta tio n an d application of co t be maintained.
The in te rp re
ad in g to a de lic at e balance that mus ce " of directions/judg
ments o f
ex pr es sio n, le ul di so be di en
freedom of empt to only "wilf
ha ve be en ra ised to restrict cont
Deman ds power
m ov e "s ca nd al izing the cnmt" is la ck of ob je ct iv i!Y and unfettered
the court and re reach. As there ' preiudice
sa id th at it m ay lead'to judicial over co ns id er ed as co nt empt under the te nn
It is also uary things to be
on th e court through resid •
co nf er re d up batable issue
ity of th e co ur t. pt an d its pu ni sh ment has been a de
to the au th or cont em dges. A
th at a ju dg e ha s in determining the s gi ve n to o' m uc h authority to the Ju
• The discretio n ntempt power ha
so m e sc ho lars because the co · d saids Lathat
in the ey es of
rs ity ha s about this Jai tle y, the latees,mon inister ohakn ow w
ia U ni ve W he n -Aron e wh
professor from Virg
in
f · · · d , and • there are two kinds of judg r, it wa s no t
w er th at th e role O vtctun, JU ge an d the oth er wh o knows Law ministe that pre-
contempt po had also remarked
erously mixed.
prosecutor are dang goes around the due process t~en as co?tempt. He by the post-
cr iti cism ret ire me nt Ju dg ements are inspired
Much of the r contempt retire-ment jobs.
in the punishment fo e and
held a prCJesI sancodnftherenc .
or lack of restraint th at th e ju dg e in th e h~ jud ge s _in 20 18
ve argued • Westioned the mtegrity of the
4
e court, 1t
of court. Critics ha rsh w hi le giving qu
co lltemp t.
may be to o ha ho was not tak en as
Cninmal contempttla · rly, sometu· nes th.e person w c~ se inv olv ing Bhushan himself ~ 2001 '
•
the Judgm en t. Si m • In a ped Th
e court has st him were dropism
the information to th proceedmgsagain ~f Ju ~ upremese
refused to provide ar or for many years under the Co urt ha d he ld tha t pe rso
tic
na
ism
l cri
".
tic a dge do
ye to "fair cri
been to jail for one ophole in th is no t am ou nt
charge of contemou pt. There is some lo -
sh ld be fu lfille d. ig h Co ur t e
context and it nding in various H s and the Suprem OUrts, which
C
e are hi gh nu m be rs of contembpt cases pe rd en ed ju di ci ar y.
Ther . trati~
. 1s . n ~ an already over bu
. . dmm th d- . COUJ1. The exp .
delays theJustice _a ues of arb1trarmess and interpretation of e worh Scan .
dalis m g ress1on
e
er . .ha ve be en iss Th e co ur t als o h Id
cr iti ci sm f.
. • Th ,,
t has not be en de fin ed. e t at fa ir n
scandahsmg th e cour
" ~
-- - ·
-
tS I P ag e
 (!)'
~
§. ..
0#
Cl -EA
. , bl' • t rest ·s not contempt.
good f:a1t h m
'
But how to ascertain good faith 1s the
.. ~ §j;J
pu 1c m e , 1 m11l1on-dollar ques\· Ci ()
as the Act has not defined it as well. 111

Apart from cnt1 . . . th e are also some good thin

c1sm er gs about contempt. Contempt of Cou
. the country This statute
. . . rt Act , 1971 is one " f
the most powerful statutes lll gives the Constitution . "
an individual's fundamental ri hts to · . al Cou rt the wide power to restrict
.
personal liberty (that he got under Art . . .
icle 21 of the lnd1an Constitution)
scanda112m
- · the court' or wilfully disobeying
c: ,
1or g the court's order ·ud ment decree
and direction e
, .
Constifotional Provisions Relating to
the Contempt of Court
The Constitution grants authority to
the Supreme Court and High Courts
penalize contempt, with the operatio through Articles 129 and 215 to
nal procedures outlined in the Con
1971 ). When the Constitution was adopted tempt of Courts Act 1971 (Act_of
, contempt of court was made one of 1
SF h and expression under Article the restrictions on freedom of
19 (2) of the Constitution of India. How
per se has not been defined by the Ind ever, what is contempt of court
ian Constitution.
Contempt of Subordinate Courts (Sec
tion 15)
J. Authority to Take Action: The Sup
reme Court or a High Court can take
own initiative or based on a motion mad action for criminal contempt on its
e by:
.LJIY(he Advocate-General: This is gen
erally the chief legal officer for a stat
~ Any other person with the consent in e or the central government.
writing of the Advocate-General.
In relation to the High Court for the
Union Territory of Delhi, the motion
Officer as specified by the Central Gov can also be made by (c) Such Law
ernment .in the Official Gazette, or by
in writing of such Law Officer. any other person with the consent
). Contempt ofSubordinate Courts:
If it's a case of criminal contempt of
can act based on: a subordinate court, the High Court
~ reference made by the subord
inate court.
~ A motion by the Advocate-General or
the specified Law Officer in relation
3. Specifications for Motion or Referenc to a Union Territory.
e: Every motion or reference must spe
the person charged with it. cify the alleged contempt and
4. Definition of ''Advocate-General":
Ja} 'For the Supreme Court, this term
refers to the Attorney-General or the
J)i'f For the l!igh Court, it refers to the Adv Solicitor-General.
ocate-General of the State or any of
High Court has jurisdiction. the States for which the
For the court of a Judicial Commission
er, it refers to the Law Officer specifi
the Official Gazette. ed by the Central Government in

Recent Cases on Contempt of Court

In a significant legal development, the Sup
reme Court oflndia has taken a note
Ayurveda Ltd., a prominent player worthy step against Patanjali
in the Indian consumer goods mar
misleading advertisements. The Suprem ket, for allegedly-disseminating
e Court served a contempt notice to Pata
Balkrishna for allegedly violating a com njali and its director Acharya
mitment ~ ade to the court, which pro
advertisements regarding their drugs hibited them from releasing any
and from making statements against
followed the presentation of evidence any medical system. This decision
by the IMA in court, jncJudiu g a Pata
newspaper and a press conference whe njal i advertisemcmt in 'Too Hiudu'
re the company claimed to have com
through yoga. The court found Patanjal pletely cured diab etes and asthma
i in violation of the previous court ord
from disseminating misleading advertis er, which prohibited the company
ements and ·making fals e claims. In
2023, the Court critic; ed Patanjali for its ruling dated November 21,
persisting in publishing deceptive clai
modern medical systems and sternly ms and advertisements against
warned of imposing a fine oH l cr~
f such practices continued.
16 IP a ge -·- - - - -- ------ - --
~ -~i ........-
,
01:
0~
~1-
~
111""
~ ~ e: Id h ·
~e: ~✓, ~'e-. court /11 Re Pras hant Bhus han & A nr h as h e t e advoc ate Prash an t Rhu shan as g:utlt y of
rcmc ·· · · · d· · · pictu re of
~-~ ~ rt for his two tweet. e u 1c1ar . Bbus han's first tweet perta ined to a
, <.<> ,
9~ 5tJP .
~? ~ /. c-> l, 1p_t of cou
SA Bobd e in whic h he is se 'tf h ' d tweet Bhus an
,
~ -;i, u>,,,_ _fl,efl
1~ f Justice
· en SI mg on a 1gh-en d moto rcycl e. In the secon
~ 'o o · · th · · ·
IOt Ia st fcour chief Justic es .o flndi a in the conte xt of the state of affairs in the
~ - ~?c-> /'f tle e
,\, ,:;~ "ti O ,,, e an opmi on on e roe
....,,-; . ~ - ;.,-, ,,,v
'O o,,. :~ .
. 'v ~"- th ~ argum ent that the tweet has not really interf ered with admi nistra tion of j ustice.
,rbe Court reJec ted st the
the Supre me Cour t to initiate the proce eding s again
Jlowe ver;' the court rehed on past judge ment s by e with the
affirm ativel y that there has been actua l interf erenc
advocate. It held that it is not neces sary to prove tion of
ent is likely to interfere with the prope r admi nistra
admi nistra tion of justic e. If a defam atory statem effec t of
Also, the comm ents that can have .an inevi table
justic e, then it can be a groun d for conte mpt.
judic iary, can be a groun d for conte mpt.
unde rmini ng the confi dence of the publi c in the test is to
court ' the court had alrea dy held that the real
Rega rding what const itutes the 'scan dalisi ng of is left
as a judge, or as an indiv idual . If the latter, the judge
d,:ter mine whet her the vilifi cation is of the judge faith and
r to commit for conte mpt. For ascer tainin g good
to his priva te reme dies, and the court has no powe respo nsibl e
surro undin g circu mstan ces inclu ding the perso n
t-he pubh c mtere st, the court s have to see all the han' s
the intended pmpo se. Havin g concl uded that Bhus
f'?r comm ents, his know ledge in the field, and Cour t noted
ofbei ng in the publi c intere st and good faith, the
invoc ation of'tr uth' as a defen ce failed the tests the Cour t after
t. Also, Bhus han refus ed to apolo gise to
that it had to impo se an appro priate punis hmen nt the
to his groun d and has no remo rse. Takin g into accou
nume rous indic ation s, demo nstrat ing that he stood Cour t,
it 'magn anim ity' and 'state sman ship' and that the
Attor ney-G enera l's plea that the Cour t should exhib I. He is
s to this matte r', Bhus han has been fined INR
from the begin ning, 'was desiro us of giving quietu impr isone d
by 15 Septe1!1ber 2020 , failing whic h he will be
requi red to depos it this with the Cour t Regis try
in the Supre me Cour t for three years .
for three mont hs and also debar red from pract ising
r and
a notic e to Kuna! Kamr a in Shrir ang Katn eshw arke
On 18th Dece mber 2020 , the Top Court had issued him for his
seeki ng crimi nal conte mpt actio n again st
Ors vs. Kuna / Kam ra where in the petitioners were of The
Conte mpt of Cour ts Act,1 972 and Artic le 129
derog atory tweet s again st the Judic iary under the
four tweets:
Cons tituti on oflnd ia,1950. The foilowing were the
~ The Supre me Cour t of this count ry
is the most Supre me joke ofthi~ count.2:'·· ·
we repla ce
tes in matte rs of "Nati onal Inter ests" it's time
_,,YThe pace at which the Sup~eme ~ourt ope~a
--·
Maha tma Gand hi's photo with Hans h Salve s phot<? ed
pagne to first class passe ngers after they' re fast track
~DY Chan drach ud is a flight attendant serving cham
be board ed or seate d, let alone serve d.
throu gh, while comm oners don't know if they' ll ever Supr eme Cour t
~ All lawye rs with a spine must stop the
use of the prefix "Hon 'ble" while referr ing to the
back... ·
· or its judge s. Hono ur has left the building long
t build in
bed sa~o ~-col oured ima e of the Su reme Cour
Alon g with the tw~ets, ~mr a had ~oste d a m~ . · g
r 1s sttll pendi ng befor e the court
with a BJP flag hoiste d m the Cour ts fo¥er. This matte
matio n Tech nolog y (Mei tY) a mend e d t h e lnfo r
In April 2023 , the Minis try of Electronics and Infor t·
ma ion
. y (Digi tal Medi a Ethic s Code) Rules , 2021 , under the powe rs grant db s, . )(
-Tech nolog e y ectio n 87(2 ·v)
he
nl'+I
. . )(v), comp els socia l medi a inter m . - ~
~IT Act. !his amen d~en t, specifically to Rule 3(1)(b edian es to remo ve
sines s that is fla ed b th
informat10n conce rnmg the Central Government's e ~act Chec k Unit FC as
the gover nmen t
"fake , false, or misleading." The . FCU,. formed by , opera tes with c ons1'd erabl e exec t·
. .
oversight, and its nature and fimct1on brm it under the defin ition of"other autho riti ,, u Ive
. .. . . H ,
s const itutio nality faced ch ll es per Artic le 12
India n Constitutm n. owev er, the rule . verd · . of the
. of India. at the Bomb ay High . Court wher e J f a enges, leadi ng t o a Spht
Kamr a v. Umon us ice Neela Gokh ale u h ict in Kun a/

I
,
eld the ame d
n ment,
17 I P a g e
 -~".
·.::; ~
:
..... "'
§' 1
CJ '•.
.while Justice Gautam Patel strnck it-down : The·Supreme-Courtintervened, staying
'\ ~ i
the operation of the _9azctt~ -0 'S .
Notification related to the FCU , recognizing the case' s "serious constitutional
questions."
The amendments impose a duty on intermediaries to ensure no flagged content
is hosted, displayed, uploaded,
~hare d on their platfonns, with non-compliance potentially leading to
the loss of their "safe harbor"
immunity under Sectio11 79(1) of tire IT Act. However, significant concern
s arise due to the lack of 71ear
guidelines for what qualifies as "fake, false, or misleading" information.
The amendments encompass an
.;;.;~-; ,e scope, covering all "information" as defined by the IT Act, which
includes not only factual data but
also opinions, critiques, and analyses. J~tice Gokhale's interpretation of
the amendments, wherein she
conc~tualizes_!JUth as an absolute, objective fact, has received criticism for
oversimplifying the nature of
·irrlbr~ati~~- This perspective eq~ information with "truth. " dismiss
ing the nuances of subjective
interpretation and the· potential for government overreach.
_..
Justice Gokhale relies on dictionary definitions to interpret "fake. " "false,
" and "misleadinz , " terms that
remain undefined in both the Rules and the IT Act. She defines "fake" as non-ex
istent, "misleading" as giving
an incorrect or delusive impression, and "false" as anything that contradicts the
truth. These definitions l;ck
precision and objective standards, rendering them ambiguous and arbitr ~.
Additionally, the term ''bus ~
of the central government" is left undefined, expanding the rule's scope unpred
ictably and allowing for a wide
interpretation of what constitutes government-related information. This vaguen
ess in terminology, particularly
when applied to the legal definition of"information," permits broad censorship
powers with no specific legal
standards to guide their application, thus raising concerns of manifest arbitrar
iness.
The landmark S!]reya Singha/ v. Union q,LJndia case serves as a significant precede
nt, highlighting the dangers
of va~e legislative language. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court invalida
ted Section 66A of the IT Act
for its vague and broad terms, which led to self-censorship as iudividuals feared
criminal liability without a
clear understanding of what content was prohibited. Similarly, the present amendm
ent could lead to a chilling
effect on speech, as intermediaries may indiscriminately censor content to avoid
litigation and potential ~ss
of immunity. By granting the government the power to decide what information
is "fake, false, or misleading"
without clear standards or a graded res.ponse policy, the amendment risks becomi
ng a tool for controlling the
narrative around government activitie.<..

Justice Gokhale introduces an element of "knowledge and intent" as a precond

ition for the FCU's ac.tions,
suggesting the FCU should only flag content shared with malicious intent. Howev
er, this interpretation is not
grounded m the statutory lapguage, and le~al scholars argue that it contrad
icts established principles of
statutory interpretation. Courts are to.interpret statutes based on their p\ain languag
e and cannot insert words
or qualifications not expressed in the text, especially when such additions
lack a foundation in legislative
inten!..This interpretation is further problematic, as it implies a relian~ on governm
ent assurances rather than
an objective legal ~dard , which may lead to arbitrary enforcement.

Justice Gokhale also argues that the amendment only mandates "flagging" content
, not its direct removal, as
long as intermediaries demonstrate "reasonable e orts" to revent such
information's s read. However,
without a clear standard for "reasonable efforts, " intermediaries are left with
little guidance, incentivizing
them to over-remove flagged content to avoid penalties. This broad regulato
ry power, devoid of specific
guidelines, effectively allows the government to shape online discourse, as
any i::ontent inconsistent with the
_government's narrative may be flagged and removed without due process.

Toe amendment conflicts with core democratic principles highlighted in S

Rangarajan v. P Jagjivan Ram,
·where the Supreme Court emphasized the essential role of open pubhc debate
and the free exchange of ideas.
18 IP age
 ~
gov
movie or post .that critiques ernmcnt actions zqed ac : · :Ste , d. "
\
\ Q ,ic1 1
1 . lac k fac tu I b . _co uld technically be t.las~~ ......,,_ m1 a ma 0

li se t10nal nature, is f h-
~ it ma y, by its fic a as1s Th
. vagueness. lea ves cit ize ns .
unsure o w ether
red 'fake •l''alse, or 111.1sleadina ,, h
~ ·''" · ·11 b conside .
pre ss1 on e Th . tnc. t1v .
1✓,:ex d
WI
. . . . , t us fos term tr self:-c ens ors hi
. 1s res e
.
11' ,r
s the ac tive and infio d ipa tio h d.
, \1,ronm•ent . . un erm me rm e pa rtic cracy requir , es sti ff
. . ns mu n bt at demo mg 1scourse on
efl •·
bli c int ere st. Co nseq uently th ese 1·llntta tto . .
easonableness
atters ot .pu ,
st e scrutm1zed under the test ofr
,ri titu tio
' as per Article 19 (2) of the Indian Cons n, a test that as th ~s_ec_o_n-d:p..a:..:.
:.: rt_:o:.:f_~th: e~a:n:a:.:ly_:s~1s_:':vi~ll~e~x~pl~o~
re. the
d fi ·1 exce ssi ve d . ~• ~ ~e
amen ment at s to meet due to its arbitrary scope.
""=== - - - - - - - - -- - - - ~an
( Contempt by Lawyers
mi scond t Of 1awyer such a · · I · . the jud ge. im posing
The uncourteous conduct or uc a s usm g ms u tm g wo rds agam st
the jud h .d. nin favorable
scandalous allegations on 1
n~g ~r sup pre ssi ng the facts and evidence for obtai
at th . dge, contempt of court.
ju gmen , ur mg a shoe g Jud ge to be pa rtia l, biase , un arr amounts to
~llegm of
- A lawyer who advises
his / J~ ge,
th gm en t or the ord er of the court is guilty of contempt
c ten s to disobey e jud . to him by the court, he is liable
court Further • wh en a 1awyer refuses or I·g to answer the question asked
· no. res emperate or
-~-r_c...,ontem t Of urt. The lawyer in his I d · s or arguments cannot use language which is int
----fo
P co . ., P ea mg
r dermines the dignity of the
court.
. loses his. temper 111 .
~p ar iamentary, which un · d · . . shouts or yells at him
, ,
ctfui to th e JU ge, questions his authonty
A lawyer who is disrespe s insulting or abusive langu
age, dictates the
pe ach me nt or tra nsf er, use
ge with im nistration of ~ e
~he court, threatens the jud es any act tha t int erferes or obstructs the admi
t, or do ,
J_udge to pass a favorable
judgmen
fou nd ed and fal se all ega tio ns of conuption on the judge
urt. A lawyer imposing tm rt, conV111cing the client to ma
ke a
amounts to contempt of co app eal to the app ell ate cou
unfair as a ground of tempt of court. Moreover,
a lawyer
accusing the judge to be tes tim am ou nts to con
ments ive false actiQg_ as
false affidavit, false docu ing bac k eve n aft er rep eat e regues s y 1e client, or
the client and not giv
withholding the ~d s of ficati on also amounts to contempt of
court.
g neces sary qu ali d his shoe towards
a lawyer without havin oca te cha nte d slo gans in court and even hurle
case, 1999 , the adv cate's
In re Na nd lal Ba lw an i pt of cou rt and wa s pu nis hed for the same. The advo
as gross criminal contem nafide and was made only to
escape
the court. This was taken t it wa s no t gen uin e or bo
court by saying tha
apology was rejected by the
punishment.
.
Magistrates persons acting
Contem_Jtt by Judges & urt Act, 1971 provides that judges, magistrates, and other
~s
{J j)J f the Contempt of Co
Section ~. However, this__section do
er co
for con tem pt of the_ir courts or a~y oth urt m
judicially can als o be held liable
the Jud ges or ma gis trate relatmg to any subordmate co
n or remark made by by the subordinate co ~. A jud
ge who
not apply to any observatio acd ec acj nd gm eo t pas sed
or revision of aoy confidence and
case of any pending appeal e he is hea rin g by his over actions or words loses the
rty to the cas cannot
insults the lawyer or any pa the adm inistra tio n of jus tice. A judge during a hearing
tru st of the people and the
reby also interferes "in ch an act b a ·ud e amount
to
· ·
ve the cou
~k a counsel to et out or lea
the
contempt of his court. tha t the law dec lared by the Supreme Court which is
itution of bidia pro~ des made by the
Article 141 of the Const in
_ Ind ia. Fu rth er, Art ic~ e 227 states that the ruling
g on all co~ts court conflicts with
apex court of India is bindin ma te cou rts exc ept when ~ Judgment of the high
sub ord tbe
High court shall be bindin
g on all
ord ina te cou rt not fol
_ low in i noring, or disobeying
Court ._In case o~ a sub ge or .
that passed by the Supreme am ou nts to con tem pt of the supenor court. In case ofju strate
law laid down by its superior .
court 1t d C wt h
. or avo1.d.mg the b.md.m .u ment assed b the Hi h 0 t en he
nn
0 f- sub
ordinate court purposely 1gno ord
.
ma te cou rt
or . d
had knowledge of the order m gment of ~e
rt. Wh .en the sub .
. li·able for contempt of cou . then
. y be held hab
1t ma le for cont~pt.
1s and deliberat ely disregard s 1t
H i~ Court

19 jP a ge
 o'" •
~
0 ~
~ ·R

- ate
~f the judge or magistr ·
scandalizes, uses abusive language, acts furiously, lowers t.he aut hon~y
. of
the coun,
ii/ .
'\' "
f.;,
interferes in the judicial proceeding or administration of justice, or is found
acceptmg any kmd of · or
illegal grati cation for passing favorable judgment is also liable for contempt
of court. The Judicial Officers
Protection Act, J850, protects the persons acting as judicial officers from
contempt proc e~s. The
immunity or the protection granted under this Act applies to acts of Jud~es, Magist
rate, Justice of the peace,
Collector or other persons acting judicially in good faith within jurisdiction while
' .
discharging their duties.
In re: Justice C.S. Karn an is a landmark in Indian legal history, as it marks
one of the rare instances where a
sitting judge of a High Court was held in contempt by the Supreme Court.
The case primarily centers on
Justice Kaman's actions and statements that challenged the judiciary's ·integrit
y, leading to unpreceden~d
)egal proceedings against him. Justice Kaman was appointed as a judge of the
Madras High Court in 2009.
His tenure, however, was marked by several controversies, including allegations
of caste-based discrimination
and misconduct. In 2011, he complained to the National Commission for Schedu
led Castes (NCSC), allegipg
c~e-based harassment by fellow judges at Madras High Court. Despite these
claims, there was no immediate
legal action, and the issue remained unresolved, signaling the beginning of a series
of contentious incidents.
Justice Karnan's behavior escalated over the years. In 2014, he interrupted court
proceedings at the Madras
High Court, accusing the bench of bias in the appointment of judges.
This act was seen as highly
unconventional and disrespectful, prompting the Supreme Court to note the indeco
rous nature of his protesr
Subsequent Chief Justices of the Madras High Court reported incidents involvi
ng Justice Kaman, including
aggressive outbursts, unauthorized orders, and accusations against fellow judges.
He even issued suo motu
orders against administrative decisions, which were later stayed by the High Court
and the Supreme Court.In
2016, Justice Kaman was transferred to the Calcutta High Court. Instead of
complying, he stayed his own
transfer order and challenged the Supreme Court's authority, citing caste discrim
ination as the reason for his
defiance.
'
Justice Karnan's actions culminated in 2017 when l!_e wrote letters to the Prime
Minister, alleging com1ption
against 20 judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts The Supreme Court
initiated suo motu contempt
- proceedings, a rare move signaling the severity of the situation. Justice Kaman
refused to attend the contempt
proceedings and instead asked for a compensatory amount of Rs 14 crore
from the seven-judge bench
for "disturbing his mind and normal life". A seven-judge bench, led by then
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar,
stripped Justice Kaman of his judicial and administrative duties. Justice Kaman
responded defiantly, Justice
Kaman "ordered" the seven-judge bench to appear before him at his "residential
court," to face proceedings
.for insulting him in open court, issued non-bailable warrants against the seven
judges ordered the CBI to prqbe
his allegations against them, directed the Air Control Authority "On merits,
we are of the considered view, that
to restrain the seven judges from flying abroad and finally Sri Justice
C.S. Kaman, has committed
convicted the bench under the SC/ST Act for a term of 5 years. contempt of
1 the ;udiciary. His actions constitute
Ju_s_tl_c_e_Ka
_ rn
_a_n- re_fu_s_e_d:-t-o_a_tt_e-nd-:-:th:--e- c_o_n-te_m
_p_t_p_r_o_ce-e-:d::-in-g'-s-a-nd contempt of th is Court, and of th e Judiciary of
continued issuing orders, including a directive for the CBI to the gravest nature. ·Having found him guilty of
committing contempt, we convict him
i,nvestigate the judges. This prompted the Supreme Court to accordingly.
We are satisfied to punish him by
fssue a bailable warrant for his appearance, a first in Indian sentenc(ng
him to imprisonment for six months.
judicial history for a sitting judge. Justice Kaman ignored t~e perform As a consequence, the contemnor shall not
any administrative or judicial
warrant and escalated his actions by "convicting" the seven- functwns, "the
seven Judge Rench headed by
juage bench of the Supreme Court in his own "residential court." C~f Justice
IS Khehar had then observed.
Toe Supreme Court found Justice Kaman guilty of criminal contempt of cou~,
sentencing him to six ~on~s
· of imprisonment, the maximum punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. The Court also drrected

- -- -- ---- ---· ---

20 IP age
 is judicial authority.
st acted upon, e'ffecfively ntillJfyinih
~ _by Ju ice Ka ma n wer e to be
orders issued ding a detailed judgment.
1
1
dia wa s bar red from pub lish ing any statements made by him· ' pen
0~ e>o"% pJ1tl.' .:m1JIY,. the. me
. High Cowi Bar
of vio len ce at the Gh .azi aba d District Court has led the Allahabad ·
!.. o,. _ ~ t mcident ) t fil · · ·· and Ses sions Jud ge. The conflict
..,. fhe · · HCBA 0 1
una l-co nte mp tpe ht1 0n- a-ga inst-the-District
,4ssoc1at1on ( . e_a ~rm excessively
mc1 den t on law yer s, whi ch the HCBA described as unwarranted and
' erupted after a lath_ic~a~ge e and demanded an 'inquiry, asserti
ng th~t the
dem ned the acti ons of the judg
/ ~ t . The associ~tion ~on cer . Jn response, the HCBA resolved to
hold a protest ,
on cam e from the jud icia l offi
directive for the police acti issal of the District
rk on No vem ber 4, 202 4. The ir demands included immediate dism
abstaining from court wo tes. The HCBA also
m ensation for the injured advoca
Jud e and the · ing an Advocate
pre ven t futu re inc ide nts of suc h nature and suggested implement
called for measures to cerns about the
rd law yer s from sim ilar con fron tations. The HCBA expressed con
Protection Act to safegua as targeting advocates. They urged
the Allahabad
icia l and pol ice acti ons per cei ved
growing instances of jud representatives from the HCBA,
to ensure an
fac t-fin din g com mit tee, incl udi ng
High Court to set up a need for fair treatment of lawyers and
criticized the
. The ass oci atio n und ersc ore d the
impartial investigation e legitimate concerns
tem pt pro cee din gs as a too l of intimidation against those who rais
increasing use of con
pt, the
about judicial conduct. For constituting civil contem
r of the
disobedience of the judgment, orde
n to
Defences Against Contempt an und ertakin o- give
court, or breach of
Thu s a pers on
Section 3 if the persons so the court must be willful.
~ Innocent Publication : Under knowing the orde r of the cou rt and its
lication no reasonable
publishing had at the time of its pub consequences and imp lications igno res or
ding was pending, the rt. A
grounds for believing that the procee ty of con tem pt of cou
violates it is guil
he bad kno mle dge
nt". e that PD
publication is describe.d as "innoce person can prov
defe nd
Judicial Proceeding: Under of the order of the court and thereby
/ Fair and Accurate Report of himself in contempt proceedings.
Section 4 a person shall not be gui
lty of contempt of court for
rt that is
of a judicial proceeding • n cases where the order of-the cou
publishing a fair and accurate report violated or the undertaking give n by the
or any stage thereof. court is violated and it is proved that such
5 it is the _privileged right of king give n is
Fair Criticism: Under ~ection order passed or und erta
~
con siders to he tme anp without jurisdict ion then such this
the Indian citizen to believe what he amount
. disobedience of violation does not
. to speak out his mind. _ tzon 6A to contemp t of court.
icer: Under ~ec
/ Complaint Against Presiding Off
pt of_court m res_pect of • en the order passed by the cou
rt is
person shall not be guilty of contem incomplete, ambiguous, vague, not spec ific
d faith concemmg the
. any statement made by him in goo . then the contemner can plea that its
court.
presiding officer of any su~ordinate e does not amo unt
violation or disobedienc
Truth as a Defence: Section 13
enables th~ Court to pemut to contempt as the order itself is not
clear or
/
ence m any contempt complete.
justification by truth as a valid def
bona fide .
· proceed~gs if it is public interest or In the case where the .order pass
ed by the

Apology: Proviso to Section 12(1)

says that the accused may court involves more than one reas onable
~ ent follows
rded may be remitted iuterpr~ ation and the resp ond
be discharged, or the punishment awa any one of them then he cann ot be said to
tion of the Court.
on apology being made to the satisfac have com mitted contemp t of cour t.
n an i Contempt
Difference between the Defamatio In case where complying or follo
wing the
person but to the contrary
The defamation is pointed against a order of the court was impossi ble and thus
prestige of an institution . court
the contempt is pointed against the orde r of the
the disobedience of the
mation against a Judge in emp t of cou rt.
T,here is a distinction between the defa does not amount to cont
of Court. Ifa person makes
his personal capacity, and a contempt the
t a Jud e in his personal cap acity, the aggrieved Jud e shall have to sue
certain defamatory remarks a ains e, but not on_~is p~st of Jud ge. Wherea
s the defamatory
personal capaci~y on his own nam
co_nte~ or in his

l
- - -- ----
21 P ag e
J
 remarks arc aimed to · · e Court and administration o f justice, then it
wou~d be
treated as 'contempt of Co,m:t' •

It is clarified by the Supreme Court in Perspective

Publica~ions vs. State o!'Maharashtra (AIR 1971
SC 221)
as follows : "Ad
. ' · t'
1stmc 1011 must be made betw een a mere hbel or defamation of a Judge and what
. . . amou nts to
~ contempt o f th e C
ourt The test in each case would be whether . _
• · . . the nnpu gned publ tcaho n 1s a mere
. defamatory attack on the Jud e or whether it is . . .
calc~ lated to mterfere wit~ th~ due co~rse of
proper administration of law by his Court. It is only ushc e or the
m the latt~r case that 1t will b~ ~umshable as cont~
Alternatively, the test will be whether the wrong mpt.
is done to the Judge personally or It IS done to the
borrow from th<; language of Mukherjee J. (as he pubh c. To
then was) (Brahma Prakash Sharma's Case AIR
the publication of a disparaging statement will be 1954 ),
an injury to the public if it tends to create an appr
in the minds of the people regarding the integ ehensiop
rity, ability or fairness of the judg e or to deter
prospective litigants from placing complete relia actual and
nce upon the Cour t's administration of justi ce or
to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judg e if it is lik~l y
himself in the discharge of his judic ial duties."

. Procedure and Punishment for Contempt

. Two Sections of the Contempt of Cour t Act, 1971
deals with the procedure of Cont emp t proceedin
.about the proceeding in the face of the court of g. One talks
records and other talks about the proceedings othe
·court ofrec ords . Section 14 of the Contempt of r than the
Cour t deals with the proc edur e of cont empt proc
face of the cour t ofrec ord whereas Section 15 of eedin g in the
this Act deals with the procedure of the cont empt
.outside the cour t of records. proceeding
·These cour ts of reco rd have got the power ·10
punish for its contempt inherent}~. Therefore,
reco rd can deal with the matter of content by these courts of
making their own procedure. Whil e exer cisin g
juris dicti on by the cour ts of reco rd the only case the cont empt
to be observed is that the procedure adop ted must
reas.9nable in whic h the alleged contemnor shou be fair and
ld be given full opportunity to defend himself.
charge again st the perso n who is punished for If the specific
the contempt is distinctly stated and he is give
9pportunity to answer and to defend hims elf again n a reasonable
st the charge then only he wili be liable for cont
cour t and the cour t proceeding runs against pim. empt of
Where the person charged with cont empt unde
applies whet her orally or in writing to have the r this secti on
charge against him, tried by some judg e othe r than
or JU ges m who se presence or hearing the conte the ·ud e
mpt is alleged to have been comm itted and the
opin ion that it is necessary in the interest of justic cour t is of the
e that the application should be allow ed, it shall
matt er to be transferred before such judg e as the caus e the
Chie f Justice may think fit and proper unde r the
~-f the case or placed befo re the Chie f Justice with circu msta nces
the statement of facts of the case.
P.unishment (Section 12)
The Cont empt of Cour t Ac! of 1971 punishes the
guilty with imprisonment that may exten d to six
fme of Rs 2,000 or both. mon ths or
-7 " It was amended in 2006 to include "trut h and good
faith" as a defense.
_v" " It was adde d that the cour t may impose puni shme
nts only if the act of the othe r pers on substanti
interferes , or tends to interfere with the due cour ally
se of justice.
Sect ion 12 of the Cont empt of Cour t Act, 1971
deals with the puni shme nt for Contempt of Cour
.an_j. the Supreme Court have been given the pow er to punish some t. High Cour t
one for the Cont empt of Court. Sect ion
· 12( 1) of this Act states that a perso n who alleged
with the Cont empt of Cour t can be puni shed
impr ison men t and thls impr isonm ent can exten with simp le
d to six mon ths, or with fme whic h may exten d
rupe es or can be of both type punishme nt How to two tho u~d
ever , an accused may be discharged or the puni
was awar ded to him mayb e remi tted on the cond shme nt tqat
ition that if he makes an apolo gy and this apol
ogy shou ld
22 IP a ge
It- urt then onl he can be exempted from the punishment of Contempt of Court. Explanation of
' ol'. tbe co . . .
' ~ l ;oteoce is t~a_t1ftbe ~~cused made ~n a olo m the bona . et 1en us a olog shall no( .b~._.re/~;q~~~n
6 pt of Court in
<:1_tE15 5 d that 1t 1s cond1t1onal or quahfied. The court cannot impose a sentence for Contem
what is rescribed under the. ivep -section of this 'Act either ,m res ect f its.elf or of a court
1~ . . . .
exces . •
b rdinate to 1t.
~ • ·
• I,
·
Remedies against an order of Punishment (Section i3) 1 . ,
in 2006. 'The n,ew Act _may
section 13 has been added in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 aftet amendment
~t co,ntempt of court cannot be
be called The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006: TJl\SSe.~tion tellsth 1
' ~ '' · 4 '
punished under certain circumstances or certain cases.
that no Court under this Act
Clause (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states
pt ·is of such a nature that it
shall be punished for Contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the Contem
.
substantially interferes or tend to substantially interfere with the due course of Justice
the justification of truth if it
Clause (b) of Section 13 of this Act states that the court may give the defence on
e is bona fide.
finds that the act done in the public interest and the request for invoking that defenc

Limitation for actions for contempt (Section 20)

otherwise, after the expiry of
No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or
committed.
~ eriod of one yea~ from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been

23 IP ag e