Simone Lawson
Contempt of court is a centuries-old concept that seeks to protect judicial institutions from attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who undermine its authority. In India, contempt of court is broadly classified into two categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt involves the willful disobedience of a court order or breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, includes disruptive behaviour in the courtroom, such as repeatedly talking out of turn or bringing forth banned evidence. The punishment for contempt of court in India can include imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to 2,000 rupees, or both.
Characteristics and Values of Contempt of Court in India
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Civil contempt | 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 |
| Criminal contempt | Publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations) that scandalises or lowers the authority of any court |
| Criminal contempt | Prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding |
| Criminal contempt | Brings the administration of justice into contempt |
| Criminal contempt | Obstructs the cause of justice |
| Punishment | Simple imprisonment for a term up to six months |
| Punishment | Fine of up to ₹2,000 |
| Punishment | Both imprisonment and fine |
| Punishment | Accused may be discharged or punishment remitted on apology being made to the court |
Explore related products
$11.44 $20
What You'll Learn
Civil contempt
In India, contempt of court is an offence that is committed when a person either disobeys a court order (civil contempt) or when they scandalise, prejudice, or interfere with the administration of justice (criminal contempt). The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines and categorises contempt of court into civil and criminal contempt. The Act also lays down the powers and procedures by which courts can penalise contempt.
The key element of civil contempt is the intentional or "wilful" disobedience of court orders or undertakings. This means that the person must be aware of the court's directives and deliberately choose to disregard them. For example, refusing to respond to a subpoena, testify, or provide certain information can constitute civil contempt. Additionally, showing disrespect for the judge, disrupting court proceedings through poor behaviour, or failing to obey a lawful order can also fall under civil contempt.
The punishment for civil contempt in India can include imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to ₹2,000. However, the courts have the discretion to forgo the punishment if the accused offers an apology that is deemed satisfactory to the court.
A Multilingual India: Languages in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Criminal contempt
In India, contempt of court is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Act defines contempt of court as either civil contempt or criminal contempt. This classification is in line with the broader understanding of contempt, which includes being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom or willfully failing to obey a court order.
In India, criminal contempt specifically refers to the publication of words, spoken or written, signs, or visible representations that "scandalise" or "lower" the authority of any court. This includes making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to judgments, and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges. It is important to note that fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings does not amount to criminal contempt, nor does fair criticism of a judicial order after a case has been heard and disposed of.
The punishment for criminal contempt in India can include simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to 2,000 rupees, or both. However, the accused may be discharged or have their punishment remitted if they offer an apology that is satisfactory to the court.
The concept of contempt of court in India has a long history, dating back to ancient times as seen in the Ramayana and Mahabharata, where courts were called 'sabha' and the king was referred to as 'sabhapati'. At that time, contempt was used to maintain the dignity and integrity of the 'sabha' and 'sabhapati', but it was not in a codified form and varied across different empires and kings.
India's Constitution: Foundation for Gender Equality
You may want to see also
Direct vs. indirect contempt
Contempt of court is generally defined as any conduct that interferes with or prejudices parties or their witnesses during litigation, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. In India, contempt of court is defined as civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil contempt involves wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves the publication of words or visible representations that bring the administration of justice into contempt, prejudice the fair trial of any matter that is the subject of civil or criminal proceedings, or obstruct the cause of justice.
Direct contempt of court occurs when there is disobedience to or disrespect of a court by acting in opposition to its authority in the court's presence. This can include failing to rise upon the judge's entrance into the courtroom, getting into a shouting match with the opposing lawyer or party in the case, or intimidating other parties in the case with gestures or threats. Indirect contempt, also known as constructive contempt, happens outside the court's presence and can involve violating a court order or purposely trying to obstruct the court's actions. For example, in the case of C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971 1 SCC 626), a booklet was published and circulated that purported to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah while acting in his judicial capacity. This was considered to bring into contempt the authority of the highest court in the land and thus weaken the confidence of the people in it.
The consequences of being found guilty of contempt of court can include simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both. Additionally, the accused may be discharged or the punishment may be remitted on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. In some cases, contempt of court can also lead to social service or more severe sanctions, depending on the nature and impact of the contemptuous act.
Memorizing India's Constitution: Strategies for Effective Learning
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Punishment for contempt
In India, contempt of court can be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or both. Imprisonment can extend to six months, and the fine can extend to two thousand rupees. The accused may be discharged, or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology made to the satisfaction of the court.
The Indian Constitution's Articles 129 and 215 define the power of the Supreme Court and High Court to deal with contempt of court concerns. The Supreme Court of India is referred to in Article 129 as the "Court of Record," which means that all of its actions and sessions are irrevocably documented as sources of evidence. Any statement against these records is considered contempt of court because they are beyond dispute. The Supreme Court has the power to punish those found guilty of contempt in certain situations, protecting the nation's rule of law.
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 categorises contempt into civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to wilful disobedience of a court order, while criminal contempt involves scandalising, prejudicing, or interfering with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Criminal contempt can also include anything that could be considered a disturbance, such as repeatedly talking out of turn or bringing forth previously banned evidence.
The 1971 Act was amended in 2006 to limit the power of courts to punish for contempt only when it "interfered with the due course of justice" and to allow truth as a defence. This amendment sought to better protect citizens from unwarranted contempt charges, protect judicial officers from threats and attacks, and strengthen penalties for willful disobedience.
The Comprehensive Constitution of India: A Lengthy Guide
You may want to see also
History of contempt law in India
The history of contempt of court law in India can be traced back to pre-Independence times, with some princely states having their own laws. The earliest recorded penalties for contempt of court in India were established under colonial legislation in the Regulating Act of 1773, which granted the newly formed Mayor's Court of Calcutta the same powers as a court of the English King's Bench to punish persons for contempt. The High Courts established in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras as courts of record also exercised the power of contempt to penalise individuals.
Following Independence, the Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, established the Supreme Court of India and the high courts in the states as courts of record, with the power to punish for acts of contempt. Article 129 of the Constitution specifically conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself, while Article 215 granted a similar power to the High Courts.
In 1961, a committee led by H. N. Sanyal, an additional solicitor general for the government of India, was formed to examine the application of contempt laws in the country. The Sanyal Committee's recommendations, which included that contempt proceedings should be initiated based on the recommendation of a law officer rather than by the courts themselves, were incorporated into the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, the current legislation governing contempt of courts in India. The Act defines civil and criminal contempt and outlines the powers and procedures by which courts can penalise contempt.
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been the subject of several challenges and calls for amendment. In 1969, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. However, the Act has faced criticism from former judges and lawyers for its broad and vague definition of criminal contempt, which includes "scandalising the court", and its potential to chill freedom of speech. In 2011, retired Supreme Court judge Markandeya Katju advocated for amendments to the Act to enable better media reporting on legal and judiciary-related matters. In 2020, a petition was filed by lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan, journalist and politician Arun Shourie, and publisher N. Ram challenging the constitutional validity of the Act once more.
The Dynamic Indian Constitution: Rigidity and Flexibility
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Contempt of court in India can be either civil or criminal. Civil contempt is committed when someone willfully disobeys a court order or breaches an undertaking given to a court. Criminal contempt is more complex and can include scandalising or lowering the authority of any court, prejudicing or interfering with any judicial proceeding, or bringing forth previously banned evidence.
Examples of civil contempt include willfully failing to obey a court order, refusing to respond to a subpoena, testify, or fulfill the obligations of a juror.
Examples of criminal contempt include repeatedly talking out of turn, bringing forth previously banned evidence, or harassing any other party in the courtroom, including committing an assault against the defendant in a criminal case.
The consequences of being found guilty of contempt of court in India can include simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to 2,000 rupees, or both. However, the accused may be discharged or the punishment may be remitted if an apology is made to the satisfaction of the court.
