📖 1. Introduction to Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court is a legal concept which ensures that courts of law are respected and that their orders and directives are followed. It acts as a shield to protect judicial authority and maintain the dignity and independence of the judiciary. Without this power, courts would become toothless bodies whose judgments nobody would obey.

1.1 Historical Background

• Ancient English Law: The concept originated in English common law. The King's courts had inherent power to punish those who disrespected or defied their authority. This power was viewed as essential to preserve judicial functioning.
• Pre-Independence India: British India followed the English contempt jurisprudence. The High Courts Act, 1861 gave High Courts inherent powers to punish contempt.
• After Independence: The Constitution of India under Articles 129 and 215 preserved the contempt power of the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively as courts of record.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: A comprehensive statute was enacted to define, regulate, and provide procedure for contempt proceedings in India. It replaced earlier legislation and brought uniformity.

1.2 Constitutional Basis

• Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court to be a Court of Record and gives it power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215: Declares every High Court to be a Court of Record with power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 142(2): Empowers the Supreme Court to investigate and punish any contempt of itself.
• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression — has to be balanced against contempt of court restrictions.

1.3 Why Contempt of Court is Important

• It maintains the dignity and authority of courts so that justice can be delivered effectively.
• It protects litigants from harassment and ensures court orders are enforced.
• It safeguards the independence of the judiciary from external pressures, criticism, and interference.
• It ensures that the administration of justice is not obstructed or prejudiced by anyone.

📋 2. Definitions — Section 2 of the Act

2.1 "Contempt of Court" [Section 2(a)]

Under Section 2(a), "Contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt. The Act divides all contempt into two clear categories.

2.2 "Civil Contempt" [Section 2(b)]

• Willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court.
• Willful breach of an undertaking given to a court (i.e., a solemn promise made in court which is then broken).

2.3 "Criminal Contempt" [Section 2(c)]

Criminal contempt means publication (by words spoken or written, by signs, visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or doing of any act which:

• (i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.
• (ii) Prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding (sub judice rule).
• (iii) Interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

2.4 "High Court" [Section 2(d)]

Means a High Court for a State and includes the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory.

2.5 "Legal Practitioner" [Section 2(e)]

Means an advocate, vakil, or an attorney of any High Court. Legal practitioners can also commit contempt in their professional capacity.

⚖ 3. Types of Contempt of Court

The Act broadly classifies contempt into two types — Civil and Criminal. These two types differ significantly in their nature, purpose, and procedure.

3.1 Direct vs. Indirect Contempt (Common Law Classification)

• Direct (In Facie Curiae): Contempt committed in the presence of the court (e.g., misbehaving in court, assaulting an officer in court). The court can deal with it immediately.
• Indirect (Ex Facie Curiae): Contempt committed outside the court (e.g., disobeying a court order, publishing prejudicial matter). Requires formal procedure and notice.

🏛 4. Civil Contempt — Detailed Study

4.1 Essential Ingredients

• Existence of a valid court order: There must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other court process in existence.
• Knowledge of the order: The alleged contemnor must have knowledge of the order. An order served on the party or their advocate is presumed to be known.
• Willful disobedience: The disobedience must be intentional and deliberate — not accidental or due to inability. Inability to comply may be a defence.
• Breach of undertaking: If a solemn promise/undertaking is given to a court (even without a formal order), its willful breach also amounts to civil contempt.

4.2 What is an Undertaking to Court?

When a party solemnly promises a court (during hearings) to do or not to do something — and the court records this — it becomes an undertaking to court. Willful breach of such an undertaking is treated as seriously as breach of a court order.

4.3 Categories of Civil Contempt

• Disobeying Injunctions: Not following a court injunction (e.g., continuing construction after court orders stopping it).
• Non-payment of court-ordered amounts: Refusing to pay alimony, maintenance, or compensation despite court orders.
• Non-delivery of property: Court orders possession/delivery of property but party refuses.
• Non-compliance with writs: Not complying with a Writ of Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, etc.
• Breach of status quo: Court directs parties to maintain status quo but one party changes things.

4.4 Important Defences in Civil Contempt

• No knowledge of order: Contemnor genuinely did not know about the order.
• Inability to comply: It is impossible for the contemnor to comply (e.g., financial incapacity to pay).
• Order was ambiguous: The order itself is so vague or ambiguous that compliance was not reasonably possible.
• Order has been complied with: Court has been misled; the order was actually followed.
• Undertaking was not clear: No clear undertaking was given or recorded by the court.

⚡ 5. Criminal Contempt — Detailed Study

5.1 Three Forms of Criminal Contempt

• Form 1 — Scandalizing the Court: Any act or publication that lowers the authority of the court in public estimation or brings the court into disrepute. E.g., calling a judge corrupt without basis, spreading false rumors about judicial integrity.
• Form 2 — Prejudicing Judicial Proceedings (Sub Judice Rule): Publishing anything that may prejudice the fair trial of a pending case. E.g., newspapers pronouncing a person guilty while trial is ongoing; broadcasting evidence not yet admitted in court.
• Form 3 — Obstruction of Administration of Justice: Any act that interferes with the course of justice. E.g., threatening witnesses, bribing jurors, assaulting parties to a case, misbehaving before officers of court.

5.2 Mens Rea in Criminal Contempt

Unlike civil contempt where willfulness is clearly required, criminal contempt has a nuanced position on mens rea (guilty mind). Courts have held that a person publishing something innocently, without knowledge of pending proceedings, may not be guilty. However, for scandalizing the court, even a reckless or negligent act can constitute contempt.

5.3 Scandalizing the Court

• Not every criticism of a judge amounts to scandalizing the court.
• Fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment (not the judge personally) is protected under Section 5.
• However, wild, baseless accusations against the judiciary with intent to lower its authority is contempt.
• The test is: Would the publication or act tend to lower the authority of the court in the eyes of right-thinking people?

5.4 Sub Judice Rule

Sub judice means a matter is pending before a court. Once a matter is sub judice, media or anyone else cannot:

• Pronounce a verdict on guilt or innocence of the accused.
• Publish prejudicial material about the accused, witnesses, or evidence.
• Conduct "media trials" — extensively broadcasting one-sided stories during proceedings.
• Interview witnesses about their evidence before they have testified in court.

🛡 6. Exceptions & Defences to Contempt

The Act provides several safeguards and defences to ensure freedom of speech is not unreasonably curtailed. These are found in Sections 3 to 8.

6.1 Innocent Publication — Section 3

• A person is not guilty of criminal contempt for publishing any matter which at the time of publication he had no reason to believe was sub judice (pending before a court).
• Similarly, if a matter was pending in a court but the publisher did not know of such pendency after reasonable inquiry, they cannot be punished.
• The burden of proving innocence is on the publisher (Section 3(3)).

6.2 Fair and Accurate Reporting — Section 4

• A person is not guilty of contempt for publishing a fair, accurate, and contemporaneous report of judicial proceedings.
• Example: A newspaper reporting exactly what happened in court — arguments, judgments — is protected.
• Exception: Reports of proceedings in camera (secret/private sessions) are not protected.

6.3 Fair Criticism of Judicial Acts — Section 5

• A person is not guilty of contempt for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been finally decided.
• Once a case is decided, legal scholars, lawyers, academics, and the public may fairly critique the judgment.
• The key distinction: Criticizing the judgment is allowed; attacking the judge personally with unfounded accusations is not.

6.4 Complaint Against Presiding Officers — Section 6

• A person is not guilty of contempt for making a complaint against a presiding officer (judge) to a proper authority (like the High Court Chief Justice, Governor, or a judicial inquiry body).
• This ensures accountability of the judiciary without fear of contempt proceedings.

6.5 Truth as a Defence — Section 13 (Amendment 2006)

• The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 added an important defence: Truth.
• The court may permit justification by truth as a valid defence if it is in public interest and the request is bona fide.
• Before 2006, truth was NOT a defence to contempt in India. This amendment brought India in line with international standards.
• The court has discretion — it must be satisfied that allowing the truth defence is in public interest.

6.6 Acts Committed Outside India — Section 3(2)

• No person is guilty of contempt of court for publishing matter outside India (in a foreign publication) where the publication is not available/circulated within India.

⚖ 7. Punishment for Contempt — Section 12

7.1 Maximum Punishment

• Simple Imprisonment: Up to 6 months.
• Fine: Up to Rs. 2,000 (two thousand rupees).
• Both: Both imprisonment and fine can be awarded together.

7.2 Discharge of Contemnor — Section 12(1) Proviso

• The accused contemnor may be discharged or the punishment may be remitted on apology.
• The apology must be sincere, bona fide, and unconditional — courts have held that a half-hearted or conditional apology does not suffice.
• The court has discretion to accept or reject the apology.

7.3 Punishment of Companies — Section 12(2)

• Where a company commits contempt, every person responsible for the conduct of its business at the time of contempt shall be deemed guilty of contempt.
• A company can only be punished with a fine (not imprisonment obviously).

7.4 Limitation Period — Section 20

• No court shall initiate contempt proceedings after the expiry of 1 year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
• This limitation period prevents stale or revenge-driven contempt petitions.

🏛 8. Powers of Courts in Contempt

8.1 Supreme Court

• Article 129: SC is a Court of Record. It can punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 142(2): SC may pass any order necessary to do complete justice, including investigation and punishment of contempt.
• Under Section 15, the SC may take suo motu action or on the motion of Attorney General / Solicitor General or any other person with the AG/SG's consent.
• SC's power is plenary — it is not limited by the provisions of the 1971 Act. The Act does not restrict the SC's inherent constitutional powers.

8.2 High Courts

• Article 215: Each HC is a Court of Record with power to punish contempt of itself.
• Under Section 15(1), HC may take action for criminal contempt on its own motion or on petition by the Advocate General (in States) or on petition by any other person with AG's consent.
• HC can also punish contempt of subordinate courts — this is an important supervisory power over lower judiciary.

8.3 Contempt of Subordinate Courts — Section 10

• Every High Court has the power to punish contempt of courts subordinate to it.
• A subordinate court (like a Sessions Court, Civil Court) itself cannot punish for criminal contempt — it must refer the matter to the High Court.
• This ensures the High Court supervises the entire lower judiciary effectively.

8.4 Power to Try Contempt Summarily — Section 14

• When contempt is committed in the face of the court (direct contempt, in facie curiae), the court may punish it summarily after giving the contemnor an opportunity to explain.
• The contemnor must be given an opportunity to be heard before punishment — principles of natural justice must be followed even in summary proceedings.

📝 9. Procedure for Contempt Proceedings

9.1 Initiation of Proceedings — Section 15

• Suo Motu: The court itself can take up a contempt matter on its own initiative without anyone filing a petition.
• By Motion: AG or SG (for SC) or Advocate General (for HC) may move a formal motion.
• By Private Individual: A private person can also file a petition, but needs the consent of the AG/Advocate General for criminal contempt.
• Civil Contempt: Usually initiated by an aggrieved party who has the benefit of the court order being flouted.

9.2 Notice to Contemnor

• Once contempt proceedings are initiated, the court issues a show cause notice to the alleged contemnor.
• The notice must specify the acts/omissions alleged to constitute contempt.
• The contemnor must be given reasonable time to file a reply and prepare their defence.

9.3 Reply and Hearing

• The contemnor files a reply (counter-affidavit) denying or explaining the alleged contempt.
• Both sides are heard — principles of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) must be followed.
• The contemnor has the right to be represented by a lawyer.
• If found guilty, the court may hear submissions on punishment before sentencing.

9.4 Apology and Discharge

• At any stage, the contemnor may offer an unconditional apology.
• The court has full discretion to accept or reject the apology. A lame, insincere apology will be rejected.
• Even after conviction, the punishment may be remitted if a sincere apology is made.

9.5 Appeal — Section 19

• An appeal against an order of the High Court in contempt lies to the Supreme Court.
• An appeal against an order of a single judge of the SC lies to a bench of at least two judges of the SC.
• The appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the order.

9.6 Natural Justice in Contempt Proceedings

• Audi Alteram Partem: The contemnor must always be given an opportunity to be heard.
• Right to Know Charges: The charges must be clear and specific so the contemnor can effectively defend.
• Right to Legal Representation: The contemnor can engage a lawyer of their choice.
• Reasoned Order: The court must give reasons for finding contempt and for the punishment imposed.

📊 10. Comprehensive Comparison Table

10.1 Civil vs Criminal Contempt — Full Comparison

10.2 Contempt Powers: SC vs HC

📚 11. Important Case Laws

11.1 Landmark Supreme Court Cases

• Arundhati Roy v. SC of India (2002): Activist Arundhati Roy was held guilty of criminal contempt for filing an affidavit making allegations against the Supreme Court. The SC clarified that judges and courts can be criticized within limits but baseless personal attacks are contemptuous.
• P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988): SC held that fair criticism of judgments is permitted. Judges must be open to criticism. Courts must not be too sensitive to public commentary about judicial functioning.
• Advocate General v. Bhagwant Singh (1976): Established that contempt proceedings must follow principles of natural justice — the contemnor must get a proper opportunity to be heard.
• Re: Hira Lal Dixit (1954): SC held that the power of a Court of Record to punish for contempt is inherent and cannot be taken away by any ordinary legislation.
• Sujata Kohli v. Dr. Prem Lata Bansal (2002): SC held that a conditional apology is not acceptable. An apology must be wholehearted, unconditional, and sincere to be accepted by the court.

11.2 Cases on Sub Judice / Media Trial

• State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997): SC deprecated the practice of media trials — termed it "kangaroo courts" — and held that it prejudices fair trials and amounts to contempt.
• Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI (2012): SC grappled with how to balance freedom of press with fair trial rights. Established the principle that courts can impose postponement orders on publication in extreme cases to protect fair trial.

11.3 Cases on Truth as Defence

• Indirect: Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case (2020): The SC found senior advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for tweets against the judiciary. This controversial case raised debate about the scope of truth and fair criticism defences after the 2006 amendment.