Contempt of Court in India: An Overview and the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India

 

Contempt of court is a legal term that refers to the act of disobeying, disrespecting, or interfering with the authority, dignity, or administration of justice in a court of law. Contempt of court can be civil or criminal, depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. Civil contempt is the wilful disobedience or breach of a court order or undertaking, while criminal contempt is the publication or act that scandalises, prejudices, or obstructs the court or its proceedings.

 

The Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves under Article 129 and Article 215 respectively. These powers are inherent and constitutional, and cannot be limited or abridged by any legislative enactment. However, the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 provides a statutory framework to define and regulate the contempt jurisdiction of these courts, as well as other subordinate courts.

 

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines contempt of court in Section 2(a) as civil contempt or criminal contempt. It also lays down the procedure, defences, exemptions, limitations, and punishments for contempt cases. The Act also empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to take action in cases of their own contempt under Section 14, and in cases of contempt against any other court under Section 15, on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with his consent.

 

The Act also provides for some safeguards to protect the freedom of speech and expression, and to prevent the misuse or abuse of the contempt power. For instance, Section 3 states that innocent publication or distribution of any matter that interferes with or obstructs the course of justice shall not amount to contempt if there was no reasonable ground to believe that the proceeding was pending at the time. Section 4 states that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings shall not amount to contempt unless it is expressly prohibited by the court. Section 5 states that fair criticism of judicial acts shall not amount to contempt unless it is malicious or scandalous. Section 13 states that no court shall impose a sentence for contempt unless it is satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes with the administration of justice.

 

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been enacted to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to ensure the proper functioning and delivery of justice in India. However, it has also been criticised for being vague, arbitrary, outdated, and violative of fundamental rights. Some of the issues that have been raised are:

 

- The definition of criminal contempt is too broad and subjective and can be used to stifle legitimate dissent, criticism, or expression.

- The procedure for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings is not transparent, fair, or uniform, and can be influenced by personal bias, prejudice, or malice.

- The punishment for contempt is disproportionate, harsh, and inconsistent, and can have a chilling effect on free speech and democracy.

- The consent of the Advocate General is not necessary for initiating contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court or the High Courts, which can lead to selective or arbitrary use of the power.

- The Act does not provide for any appeal or review mechanism against the orders or judgments of contempt by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.

 

Therefore, there is a need to revisit and reform the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 in light of the changing times and circumstances, and to strike a balance between protecting the dignity and authority of the courts on one hand and preserving the freedom and rights of the citizens on the other hand.

 

Frequently asked questions and answers on the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India:

What is the meaning and purpose of contempt of court?

Contempt of court is a legal term that refers to the act of disobeying, disrespecting, or interfering with the authority, dignity, or administration of justice in a court of law. The purpose of contempt of court is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to ensure the proper functioning and delivery of justice in India.

What are the types and examples of contempt of court?

Contempt of court can be civil or criminal, depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. Civil contempt is the wilful disobedience or breach of a court order or undertaking, while criminal contempt is the publication or act that scandalises, prejudices, or obstructs the court or its proceedings. For example, refusing to pay alimony as ordered by a court is civil contempt, while making false or defamatory allegations against a judge or a court is criminal contempt.

What are the constitutional and statutory provisions related to contempt of court in India?

The Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves under Article 129 and Article 215 respectively. These powers are inherent and constitutional, and cannot be limited or abridged by any legislative enactment. However, the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 provides a statutory framework to define and regulate the contempt jurisdiction of these courts, as well as other subordinate courts. The Act also lays down the procedure, defences, exemptions, limitations, and punishments for contempt cases.

How are contempt proceedings initiated and conducted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts?

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to take action in cases of their own contempt under Section 14, and in cases of contempt against any other court under Section 15, on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with his consent. The procedure for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings is prescribed by the rules framed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Section 23 of the Act. The contemnor is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. The contemnor can also appeal against the order or judgment of contempt by the Supreme Court or the High Courts under Section 19 of the Act.

What are the safeguards and criticisms related to the law of contempt in India?

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 provides for some safeguards to protect the freedom of speech and expression, and to prevent the misuse or abuse of the contempt power. For instance, Section 3 states that innocent publication or distribution of any matter that interferes with or obstructs the course of justice shall not amount to contempt if there was no reasonable ground to believe that the proceeding was pending at the time. Section 4 states that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings shall not amount to contempt unless it is expressly prohibited by the court. Section 5 states that fair criticism of judicial acts shall not amount to contempt unless it is malicious or scandalous. Section 13 states that no court shall impose a sentence for contempt unless it is satisfied that the contempt substantially interferes with the administration of justice. However, the law of contempt has also been criticised for being vague, arbitrary, outdated, and violative of fundamental rights. Some of the issues that have been raised are:

§  The definition of criminal contempt is too broad and subjective and can be used to stifle legitimate dissent, criticism, or expression.

§  The procedure for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings is not transparent, fair, or uniform, and can be influenced by personal bias, prejudice, or malice.

§  The punishment for contempt is disproportionate, harsh, and inconsistent, and can have a chilling effect on free speech and democracy.

§  The consent of the Advocate General is not necessary for initiating contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court or the High Courts, which can lead to selective or arbitrary use of the power.

§  The Act does not provide for any appeal or review mechanism against the orders or judgments of contempt by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.