Shivani Gupta, Author
Abstract
The notion of contempt of court, its classification, and its importance in upholding the authority and dignity of the judiciary are all examined in this article. It draws attention to the absence of a clear statutory definition and emphasizes that each case’s facts decide what constitutes contempt. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 divides contempt of court into two general categories: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Wilful disregard for court orders is considered civil contempt, whereas acts that embarrass the court, taint legal proceedings, or impede justice are considered criminal contempt.
Introduction
Prior to passing of this Act, there was no statutory definition of the word “Contempt of Court”. Even the definition of contempt of court given in this act is not define real definition but only the classification of the contempt of court. Therefore, what amounts to contempt of court depends upon the fact of the case a matter for the court to determine. The precise definition of word “Contempt of Court” is not possible. The classification of contempt of court is also not exhaustive but enumerative. It is indeed difficult and almost impossible to frame a comprehensive and complete definition of contempt of court. Contempt of courts is the offence of defying or disrespecting a court of law. Being unpleasant to legal authorities in court or refusing to obey a court order may result in Contempt of Court charges. A judge has the authority to impose sanctions such as a fine or imprisonment on someone found guilty of contempt of court.
Meaning and nature
The term ‘Contempt of Court[1]’ is difficult to define. What would violate the court’s dignity and diminish its prestige is a matter for the court to decide, and it cannot be contained inside the four walls of the definition. This statute categorizes the word contempt of court rather than providing a definition. Contempt of court refers to actions that undermine the courts dignity and prestige. According to Corpus Juris Secondum, contempt of court is when someone acts against the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It denotes a deliberate defiance to the court’s order. Additionally, it denotes behaviour that tends to undermine the court’s authority and the way the law is administered.
Definition of Contempt of Court
Oswald[2]– Contempt of Court may be constituted by any conduct the trends to bring the authority and administration of law in to disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigation, their witness during the litigation.
Halsbury Laws of England– Any act done or writing published which calculated to bring a court or a judge into contempt or lowering authority or interfere with due course or lawful process of the court is the contempt of court.
Section 2(a)- Contempt of Court means, Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt
The above definition of Contempt of Court contained in this Act is not exhaustive. Furthermore, it is a classification of contempt of court rather than a definition. It just suggests that the contempt could be either criminal or civil.
There is no comprehensive definition of contempt of court. Every matter should be handled by the court as it arises, and in every instance of contempt, the ability to appeal will correct any flaw in the way the law is applied
Essential of Contempt of Court
In India, certain conditions ought to be met in order to find someone guilty of contempt of court:
- A Legitimate Court Order.
- The decree must be known by the respondent.
- The respondent must be able to comply with the order.
- The respondent must exhibit wilful disobedience.
Categorizes of Contempt of Court
Civil Contempt and Their Defence
Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971- “Civil Contempt means Wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court.” In addition to punishing the offender, the civil contempt action aims to enforce and enforce the court’s order. In the case of Third Additional District Judge v. Vidya Sagar[3], according to Dehradun, 1991 Cr LJ 2286, civil contempt actually has two purposes: (i) it vindicates the public interest by punishing contemptuous behaviour; and (ii) it uses coercion to force the defendant to comply with the court’s orders.
The following must be demonstrated in order for it to be considered “civil contempt”:
- There is a violation of the Court’s undertaking or disobedience of its order, decree, etc.; and
- The violation or disobedience is deliberate.
The following is a discussion of these requirements:
Disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court:
It is necessary for the civil contempt that order, which has been disobeyed, must have been passed by the court having jurisdiction to pass such order. The order passed by the court having no jurisdiction is not binding on the party and hence, disobedience of such order will not amount to contempt of the court. In the same way, when undertaking given in a proceeding a court having no jurisdiction if violated subsequently, constitute no contempt of court. The burden of proof that the court has no jurisdiction is on the person who alleges it.
Some of the case which is of Wilful Disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court:
In Courts on its own Motion v. N.S.Kumar 1995 Cr LJ 1261 held that
If it is established that a person has real knowledge of the court order, they cannot avoid being held accountable for contempt by arguing that it was not served.
A person accused of non-compliance cannot use the excuse that they were awaiting orders to take action to excuse their inaction.
If a wilful commitment was made to the court and not just to another party, then breaking that commitment is considered contempt.
Such an undertaking may be made on behalf of a party by an authorized representative, such as an advocate.
Because it misleads the court, impedes justice, and denigrates the judicial institution, breaking a court undertaking is tantamount to contempt.
Wilful disobedience or breach:
The essence of civil contempt is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order or writ of the court. The conduct of the charged contemner must be wilful appearing consider and cognizant neglect of the court.
Defences in civil contempt
- Disobedience or breach was not wilful
- Order has been passed without jurisdiction
- Order disobeyed is vague and ambiguous
- Order includes more than one sensible interpretation
- Compliance with the order is impossible
- No knowledge of order
Criminal Contempt and Their Defences
Section 2(c) is the publication (whether by words, spoken and written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
- Scandalizes or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.
- Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding.
- Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
Defences in Criminal Contempt
- Innocent publication and distribution of matter.
- Fair and Exact report of judicial proceeding
- Fair feedback of legal act
- Bona fide complaint against the directing officers of the subordinate’s court
- No significant interference with due course of justice
Punishment
The Contempt of Court of India Act, 1971, stipulates that the same punishment apply for both criminal and civil contempt: a maximum sentence of six months in prison and a fine of ₹2000. The act permits the accusation to be dropped if the accused person apologizes to the court; the court will decide whether the apology is adequate.
Case Laws
In Re Ajay Kumar Pandey: – The Supreme Court Found an advocate guilty of contempt of court for using intemperate language against judicial officers. The advocate was sentenced to four months in imprison and a fine of Rs 1,000.
Hari Singh Nagra v Kapil Sibal
Fact of The Case
Advocate Kapil Sibal and colleagues sent a keepsake, “Mehfil,” to be published by an association of lawyers. It focuses on the declining standards of the lawful community. Whereas a few of the respondent’s memento was included in the Times of India newspaper during the Supreme Court Bar Association elections, the souvenir was only given out to BAR members. It was also claimed that the souvenir was used to disparage the way the courts operate and the way justice is administered.
Supreme Court held
The Supreme Court declared that “nothing in the record demonstrate that the Mehfil souvenir in which the message was printed was advertise for sale to the general public.” “The case was not fit where formal procedures for contempt should be drawn up,” said the court hearing the case. The contempt actions were therefore dismissed.
Conclusion
People who have legitimate complaints come to the courts to have their rights and interests protected; since they are the centre of justice, they need their choice to be regarded to a few degree. A competent and efficient judicial system that can provide impartial justice would not result from court intimidation or disobedience. Known as the “Watchdog of Democracy,” the judiciary is one of the three pillars of the Indian Parliament. Courts support the Constitution in a variety of ways, from advising to interpreting laws. As the Constitution’s saviours, they expect respect. An independent court with a strong enforcement system and the authority to steer criminals toward the rule of law is the ultimate saviour of democracy.
[1] Defines contempt of court as either civil or criminal contempt.
[2] Contempt of court involves conduct that disrespects the authority or administration of law
[3] Civil contempt serves the dual purposes of public interest vindication and coercion for compliance.
