The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Introduction:

One of the most essential organs of Indian democracy is the judiciary. It is the saviour of rights of the people guaranteed by the constitution. Its function ranges from providing Justice to people, interpreting and applying laws made by the legislature, passing equity legislation, protecting rights of citizens and non-citizens, safeguarding the principles of the constitution. It is that organ of the democracy which deserves and commands the utmost respect in the society. The Judges in a society hold very high regard as it is upon them the responsibility of delivering justice is cast. Therefore, it becomes imperative to maintain the sanctity of the judiciary and penalise the act of its contempt. A report submitted by Justice B.S. Chauhan on Review of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971[i] shows that the number of civil and criminal contempt cases pending in different High Courts and Supreme court are as high as 96,993 and 583 respectively.  To control these alarming numbers, the courts are empowered to take actions against those who are responsible for ‘contempt of court’ so as to discourage this unfortunate practice.  In the course of this article, I shall strive to discuss laws and statutes from where the courts derive its power to deal with the contempt and to put forward its constitutional and statutory provisions.

Contempt of Court

Meaning

In simple words, contempt of court means a set of the behaviour of a person which is offensive or disrespectful towards the court. It refers to wrongdoings of a person which runs in conflict or challenges the honour and supremacy of court. Non-compliance of the order of the court, tampering of witnesses, intervening in the proceedings without probable cause, tampering with or non-disclosure of evidence, unauthorised intervention in proceedings might be some of the acts which come under the purview of contempt of court. ‘Contempt of Court’ is also defined under section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 will I shall be discussing later on in the course of this article. 

History

At present, the contempt laws in India are governed by the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. But it is important to note that the above-mentioned act as a concept had its roots from English law. Apex courts of England, from the early period of times, have convicted people who were responsible for dishonouring courts or judges. In India, the judicial committee of privy council was first to recognise that the offence of contempt of courts and power of the court to punish for it are as same as the power of Apex Court in England. It was in the year 1926 that the first statute on the contempt laws was passed. As in this period, our country was under British rule, provisions of English Common Laws presided over contempt laws before this act. But it can be said that this act was the first act dealing specifically with the contempt of Court. In total it had three sections with objectives of eradicating the doubts revolving around the power of high courts in penalizing for the contempt of courts and also defining the said powers of the court. However, after independence, in the year 1952, the Contempt Act of 1926 was repealed by the Contempt Act of 1952. Naturally, this act provided for the removals of or ommissions made in the Contempt Act of 1926 and aimed at widening the jurisdiction of High Courts and purview of contempt laws. With the enactment of this act, Judicial Commissioners Court was also included in the definition of ‘High Court’ and the power of High court was widened, empowering it to intervene into contempt matters committed not only for itself but also for subordinate courts irrespective of the fact whether they are committed within or outside of its jurisdiction.

However, despite all these advances, there were a lot of shortcomings. It was felt that the laws on Contempt of Courts were still unsatisfactory and undefined which gave a wide range of power to judges to interpret this law mostly in their own ways. Thus, a need for having this law being scrutinized by a dedicated special committee was felt and this led to the formation of  Committee set up in the year 1961 under the chairmanship of late Shri H.N. Sanyal the then Additional Solicitor General of India. The said committee made extensive research in this law and addressed the problems faced by the courts in this regard by comparing our country’s contempt laws with other countries. The recommendations[ii] made by the committee addressed the problem of balancing the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and the importance of saving the honour of the courts. The recommendations were widely accepted and taking these recommendations under consideration the joint select committee of the Parliament prepared The Contempt of Courts Bill, 1968 which later on became the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) on 24^th December 1971.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971[iii]

This Act is the sole act which governs the contempt matters in India. Not only it defines the term ‘contempt of court’ and types of contempt but also prescribes punishments for such an unfortunate event. I shall discuss its provisions/sections one by one.

1. Sub-Section (2) to Section 1 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) talks about the short title and its extent. It says that application of The Act shall be to the whole of India but it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. However, this position has been changed since Article 370, providing special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, has been abrogated on 5^th August 2019 via Presidential Order[iv].
3. After the abovementioned order was passed, the Central Government on 9^th August 2019 passed Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019[v]. Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act provided for applicability of all Central Laws mentioned in Table-1 of the Fifth Schedule of this Act to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh.
4.  Among other Central laws, Table-1 of Fifth Schedule also provided for applicability of  The Contempt Of Courts Act 1971 to the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and also provides that Proviso to Sub-Section (2) to Section 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall be omitted thus providing the application of The Act to the Whole of India.

Few case laws in the context of Section 1 of The Act:

• In the case of Shakuntala Sahadevram Tiwari vs. Hemchand M Singhania,[vi] it was observed that the motive of contempt laws is to keep delivery of justice to people pure and flawless. Though the honour of courts is to be maintained at all costs the provisions of Contempt laws should be used in a restricted manner.
• In the case of Golcha Advertising Agency v. The State of Maharashtra[vii] it was observed that the contempt proceedings are unique in nature.

• Section 2 of the Act defines the ‘contempt of court’.  As per Sub-clause (a) to section 2, ‘contempt of court’ means Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt.
• As per Sub-clause (b) of section 2 Civil Contempt is referred as willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction writ, order or any other process of a court or breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• As per Sub-clause (c) of section 2 Criminal Contempt means, whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visual representation or otherwise, the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or likely to scandalize or degrades or likely to degrade the authority of any court or damage or intervenes or likely to intervene the due process of law or any judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice.
• As per Sub-clause (d) of section 2, the High Court also includes the court of the judicial commissioner.

Few case laws in the context of Section 2 of The Act:

• In the case of Noorali Babul Thanewala vs K.M.M. Shetty,[viii] it was observed that if on the faith of an undertaking, given to the court by the person, the court takes action and later on if it is revealed that the said person has breached the undertaking then it will amount to misconduct leading to contempt of court.
• In the case of C.P Singh vs the State of Rajasthan,[ix] it was observed that the contempt laws should be exercised in those cases where it is seen that the order of the court has intentionally not been followed.
• In the case of Pritam Lal vs High Court of M.P.[x], it was observed that lawyers defaming sitting judges of High Court or Law officers amounts to intervention in the administration of justice.
• In the case of Dr D.C Saxena vs. Hon’ble CJI[xi] Apex court while dealing with the question of what constitutes ‘contempt of court’ held that outraging the modesty of court or judges, demeaning the value of courts and administration of justice in the eyes of people, harming or likely to harm the reputation of the court or disrespect, questioning judges authority in matters are few of the situations where it can be said that contempt of court took place.
• In the case of Dharamshala vs. R.A. Kansal,[xii] it was held that once the contempt order has been passed the order cannot be reviewed.
• In the case of Vidya Charn Shukla vs Tamil Nadu Olympic Association,[xiii] it was observed that the proceedings of the contempt are summary in nature.

Acts Not Constituting Contempt of Courts

• As per the act the following instances or Acts does not constitute contempt of court:
• Section 3 of The Act talks about Innocent Publication and Distribution. If any person has published anything which intervenes or likely to intervene in the administration of justice or hinders the course of justice, in connection with the civil or criminal matters being pending at the time of said publication then the said person shall not be guilty of contempt if he had no ground for believing that the matter was pending before the court.
• According to Section 4 of The Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt if he has published fair and accurate report of the judicial proceedings.
• According to section 5 of The Act, a person shall not be guilty of the contempt for publishing any fair remarks on merits of the case which has already been decided.
• According to section 6 of The Act, a person shall not be guilty of the offence of contempt if the remarks made by him concerning the presiding officer of subordinate courts are in good faith. It is important to note here that subordinate court means any court subordinate to High court.
• According to section 7 of The Act, a person shall be guilty of contempt for publishing an honest report of court proceedings before any court sitting or in-camera only in some circumstances and those are – if he publishes any report which runs contrary to any enactment; if the court has expressly prohibited publication of such information or court proceedings in the interest of public policy of the by the virtue of its inherent powers; if the publication of such information might interfere with the public order or security of the state; or if the information published relates itself to a secret process which is an issue in the court matter.

Punishment for Contempt

• As per The Act, Section 12 deals with the punishment for contempt of court. the provisions of this section are as follows:
• Sub-Section (1) to Section 12 expressly provides that a person guilty for contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six months or with fine not exceeding two thousand rupees or with both provided that contempt charge on the accused may be exonerated if an apology is made by the accused to the satisfaction of the court.
• Sub-Section (2) to Section 12 provides that no court shall impose a sentence on the accused which is in the excess of the sentence provided in sub-section (1) of section 12 for any contempt.
• Sub-Section (3) to Section 12 provides that in the matters of civil contempt if the court is satisfied that the fine imposed may not be enough to meet the ends of justice and sentence of imprisonment is necessary then the court shall instead of sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment pass an order that the accused be detained in civil prison for a period not exceeding six months.
• Sub-Section (4) to Section 12 provides that if it is found that the Company is guilty of Contempt of Court then both the company and each person, at the time when contempt was committed,  in charge of the company or responsible for company’s day to day business shall be deemed to be guilty of contempt of court.

Few case laws in the context of Section 12 of the Act:

• In the case of N. Rathinasabapathy vs K.S Palniappa Kandar,[xiv] the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that if there is no extension to the interim injunction then the accused shall not be liable for contempt if a violation is alleged after the expiry of the stipulated period.
• In the case of B.A. Rarther vs H.K. Dua & Or.[xv] It was observed that in the context of newspaper Article, acts committed while publication of articles the liability shall be of the editor.

Constitutional Provisions Regarding Contempt of Courts

• Although most of the provisions of contempt of court are defined in The Act itself but it is important to note that Constitution of India also entails few Articles that deal with the said contempt, which are as follows:
• Article 129 of the Constitution of India[xvi] provides that the Supreme court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for its contempt of itself.
• Article 142(2) empowers the Supreme court to try and punish people for its contempt.
• Article 215 of the Constitution of India provides that the High court shall be the court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for its contempt of itself.
• In the case of Bar Association vs Union of India & Anr.[xvii] The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the power of the Supreme Court as a court of record to punish for its contempt is an inherent power and no parliament legislation can take away this power. However, the parliament through legislation may determine the nature of punishment but no more and no less.
• In the case of Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. of A.P & Ors.[xviii] the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again recognizing the importance of inherent power of contempt observed that the section or provisions of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition and not in derogation of constitutional provisions of contempt of courts. The sections of the contempt Act in no way can be used to limit the powers of court provided by the constitutional contempt Articles i.e. article 129 & 215. However, the Apex court also observed that the High court cannot create a new type of punishment for its contempt but the punishment provided in The Act shall only be recognized or awarded.

Conclusion

Since the judiciary holds the utmost respect in the society it becomes imperative that the dignity of the courts are maintained at all cost. It is because of this reason only the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 is drafted which penalises such behaviour which is unacceptable or undignified. All that matters is that the implementation of provisions of such Act should be in a reasonable and just manner and at the same time people should realise that the act of misbehaving in courts is not at all tolerated and such an act does not only hampers the integrity of courts but also diverts the court’s attention from the core matters which are of utmost importance.

---

References:

[i] Review of Contempt of Courts Act 1971

https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/parliament_or_policy_pdfs/LCI%20Report%20Summary%20Contempt%20of%20Court_For%20Upload.pdf

[ii] Report of The Committee on Contempt of Courts, Feburary 1963.

https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/33748/GIPE-096171.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

[iii] The Contempt of Courts Act 1971

https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/contempt.pdf

[iv] The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019

https://web.archive.org/web/20190805094806/http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210049.pdf

[v] Section 95 on pg 25 and Fifth schedule Table-1 on pg 37   http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210407.pdf

[vi] (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom)

[vii] (1990) 2 Bom CR 262 (Bom).

[viii] AIR 1990 S.C. 464.

[ix] 1993 Cr.L.J. 125.

[x] AIR 1992 SC 904

[xi] 1996 (5) SCC 216

[xii] 1991 Cri L.J. 2432

[xiii] 1991 Cri L.J. 272

[xiv] 1995 Cri L.J. 3622 (SC)

[xv] 1994 Cri L.J. 414 ( J&K)

[xvi] The Constitution of India.

http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf

[xvii] (1998) 4 SCC 409

[xviii] (2001 1 SCC 516