SCHOOL OF LAW

PROJECT SUBMITTION

1. Name of the Student- Sarthak Sharma

2. Roll No.- 151BLLCLB003

3. Semester- IX

4. Name of the Faculty Coordinator- Mr. Shashi Yadav

5. Name of the Course- Professional Ethics

6. Course Code- SLC591

7. Date of Submission- 16.10.2018

8. Project Title- Contempt of Court

Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of necessity
result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due course of justice.
This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any
conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard or
to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation. Halsbury defines contempt
as consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of
justice. Black’s law dictionary enunciates that it is contempt of court to prejudice the fair trial of
any cause or matter which is the subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in any way to obstruct
the cause of Justice.

In case of India, under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt of
court as civil contempt or criminal contempt, it is generally felt that the existing law relating to
contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. The jurisdiction to punish
for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizens, namely, the right to
personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to
have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special committee.

In pursuance of this, a committee was set up in 1961 under the chairmanship of the late H N Sanyal,
the then additional solicitor general. The committee made a comprehensive examination of the law
and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country
and various foreign countries. The recommendations, which the committee made, took note of the
importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the
status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice.

The recommendations of the committee have been generally accepted by the government after
considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the state governments, union
territory administrations, the Supreme Court, the high courts and the judicial commissioners.
CONTEMPT OF COURT IN INDIA

A case of contempt is C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971 1 SCC 626), where the respondent
published and circulated a booklet in public purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice
Shah while acting in his judicial capacity. Mr C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed a petition
alleging that the booklet has scandalised the judges who participated in the decision and brought
into contempt the authority of the highest court of the land and thus weakened the confidence of
the people in it. The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down
that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the
judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law
by the court.

For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which dealt
with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court
and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt. Section 10 of The
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to punish contempt of its
subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 215 is not subject
to Article 19(1)(a).

1. Civil Contempt

Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil contempt has been defined as
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.
2. Criminal Contempt

Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as
the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.

There can be no doubt that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity
of law courts and their image in the minds of the public is no way whittled down. If by
contumacious words or writings the common man is led to lose his respect for the judge acting in
the discharge of his judicial duties, then the confidence reposed in the courts is rudely shaken and
the offender needs to be punished. In essence of law of contempt is the protector of the seat of
justice more than the person sitting of the judge sitting in that seat.

A third party to the proceeding may be guilty of contempt of court if they have a part to play in
the offence. In LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagles Homes Pty Ltd ([1999] FCA 1213) Lindgren J
stated:
"It is not necessary to show that a person who has aided and abetted a contempt of court was served
with the order breached. It is necessary to show only that the person sought to be made liable knew
of the order."

The Limitation period for actions of contempt has been discussed under Section 20 of the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 and is a period of one year from the date on which the contempt
is alleged to have been committed.
CONCLUSION

The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is one of the most powerful statutes in the country. It gives
the constitutional courts wide powers to restrict an individual’s fundamental right to personal
liberty for “scandalising the court” or for “wilful disobedience” of any judgment, writ, direction
or order.

The offence of “scandalising the court” continues in India even though it was abolished as an
offence in England and Wales long ago.

On March 8, 2018, the Department of Justice wrote to the Law Commission of India, asking it to
examine an amendment to the Act to nix “scandalising the court” as a ground for contempt and
restrict contempt to only “wilful disobedience” of directions/judgments of the court.

The Supreme Court recently published a report that noted that 568 criminal contempt cases and
96,310 civil contempt cases were found pending in the High Courts. In the Supreme Court, as of
April 10, 683 civil contempt cases and 15 criminal contempt cases have been shown as pending.

But the Law Commission has submitted a report stating that there is no point “tinkering” with the
1971 Act. The statute, it said, only lays down the procedure in contempt cases. “The powers of
contempt of the Supreme Court and High Courts are independent of the Act 1971,” the report of
the Commission said. The contempt powers of the higher courts are drawn from the Constitution
itself.

The Commission said that “to delete the provision relating to ‘criminal contempt’ inter alia
‘scandalising of courts’ will have no impact on the power of the Superior Courts to punish for
contempt (including criminal contempt) in view of their inherent constitutional powers, as these
powers are independent of statutory provisions”. Additionally, Article 142(2) enables the Supreme
Court to investigate and punish any person for its contempt.