Punishment for Contempt under Contempt of Court Act, 1971

By Saurav Yadav

Published on: December 12, 2023 at 00:06 IST

If truth is God, then glaringly the Courts are the temples wherein justice is served. The Courts deliver their decision without any delight or prejudice and are impartial to all and sundry. Moreover, selections are made as in keeping with the written law of the country; consequently, all of the judicial selections added via the Court should be respected.

As the Jurists Lady Judge Langa said, “It need to be obeyed as ordered except set aside or numerous.” Violation of the Court order result in contempt of courtroom due to which contempt law become introduced.

The term ‘Contempt of Court’ is defined as an offence of being disrespectful or disobedient to a court of law and its officials; being impertinent and rude in the court in the direction of the legal authorities, and being impudent in the direction of court docket orders can also cause contempt of court complaints. The choose has the right to impose sanctions at the contemnor which includes imprisonment for a positive time period or a excellent, in case he is determined responsible of contempt of court docket.

In this context, the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 become enacted that “define and restrict the powers of positive courts in punishing Contempt of courts and to modify their process in relation thereto.” The number one cause of the contempt regulation is to uphold the glory of the judiciary as well as assist the judges to determine cases without desire, sick will, fear, or affection.

Contempt of court Act, 1971

The Contempt of Court Act 1971 is an important piece of rules in India that offers with the offense of contempt of courtroom. It outlines the kinds of moves that may be considered as contempt of court and prescribes the penalties for such offenses.

Contempt of court docket can widely be labeled into civil contempt and crook contempt. Civil contempt involves willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, path, order, or other processes of a court docket. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, includes movements that scandalize or have a tendency to scandalize, or decrease or have a tendency to lower the authority of any court.

Here are a few key targets of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971:

1. Preservation of Judicial Authority:
2. Protection of the Administration of Justice:
3. Public Confidence inside the Judiciary:
4. Balancing Freedom of Speech:
5. Fair and Impartial Administration of Justice:
6. Legal Framework for Contempt Proceedings:

Essentials for contempt

Following are the sure necessities of Contempt of court:

1. There ought to be a valid court order and the identical must be inside the knowledge of the respondent.
2. The motion of contempt needs to clearly disregard the order of the court docket.
3. In the case of criminal contempt, the eBook is the maximum critical issue that may be either written or spoken or via symptoms or through visible illustration or through words.
4. In the case of civil contempt, disobedience ought to be done willfully to any court docket proceedings, its judgment, decree, order, etc.

Types of Contempt of Court in India

According to section 2 of contempt to court act 1971,

(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;c

Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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;

Punishments of contempt under Contempt of court act 

As per section 13 of contempt of court Act, 1971, Punishment for contempt of court is:

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to 5 be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

This section outlines the provisions related to the punishment for contempt of court. Here is the interpretation of each subsection:

(1) Punishment for Contempt:

• Contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine up to two thousand rupees, or both.
• The accused may be discharged or the punishment remitted upon making a satisfactory apology to the court.

(2) Limitation on Sentencing:

• No court can impose a sentence exceeding the limits specified in subsection (1) for contempt, whether in relation to itself or a court subordinate to it.

(3) Civil Contempt Sentencing:

• In cases of civil contempt, if the court believes that a fine is insufficient and imprisonment is necessary, it may direct the person to be detained in a civil prison for a period not exceeding six months.

(4) Contempt by a Company:

• If a person found guilty of contempt in connection with an undertaking given to the court is a company, individuals responsible for the company’s conduct of business are also deemed guilty.
• Individuals in charge and responsible for the business may be punished by detention in civil prison, subject to the court’s leave.
• Exceptions exist if the person proves the contempt occurred without their knowledge or if they exercised due diligence to prevent it.

(5) Company Officials’ Liability:

• In cases of contempt committed by a company, if it is proven that the contempt occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of a director, manager, secretary, or other officer, such individuals are also deemed guilty.
• The punishment, with the court’s permission, may be enforced by detaining such individuals in a civil prison.

Contempt of Court and Indian Constitution

Article 129: As per this Article, the Supreme Court is provided the power to punish for contempt of itself. It states that “Supreme Court to be a ‘court of record’ 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 contempt of itself.”

Article 142(2):  Grants power to the Supreme Court of India to investigate as well as punish any individual for its contempt, subject to any other law. It states that “Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

Article 215: Power is granted to all the High Courts of India to punish for contempt of itself. It states that “High Courts to be ‘courts of record’ Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

Both the Supreme Court of India and the High Court are bestowed with the power to punish the contemnor for contempt of Court. In the Contempt of Court Act of 1971, Section 12 mainly deals with the punishment for Contempt of Court. As per Section 12 (1) of the Act, a contemnor can be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to Rs. 2000 or both. 

Exceptions

Contempt not punishable in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,— (a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice; (b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defense if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defense is bona fide.

Remedies against punishment

After the amendment of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, Section 13 was added to it and the amendment Act was known as the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act of 2006. This section highlights that under certain circumstances, contempt of court cannot be punished. Section 13 (a) of the Act states that no Court should be punished for contempt of court unless the contempt is of a nature that substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of justice.

Moreover, Section 13 (b) of the Act illustrates that “the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defense if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defense is bona fide.

The Case of re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner) = involves the then President of the Bar Council of India, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra, who faced accusations of verbally abusing Justice SK Kishore of the Allahabad High Court during a court proceeding where Mishra was representing the parties. It was alleged that Mishra shouted and threatened to transfer the judge in response to a question. The judge filed a complaint, asserting that Mishra had insulted him in open court. Consequently, the case was referred to the Supreme Court for resolution.

The Supreme Court held that the contemnor, Vinay Chandra Mishra, was found guilty of criminal contempt of court under Article 142 and Article 129 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that it did not accept Mishra’s apology due to the lack of sincere regret for his disrespectful actions during the proceedings.

In the case of Hari Singh Nagra vs Kapil Sibal, the dispute arose when advocate Kapil Sibal and others sent a souvenir, focusing on the declining standards of the legal fraternity, to be published by the lawyers’ association “Mehfil.” Although the souvenir was intended for distribution among BAR members, some excerpts found their way into the Times of India during the Supreme Court Bar Association elections. Allegations were made that this publication brought disrepute to the Courts and the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the Mehfil souvenir, containing the contentious message, was sold to the public. The bench concluded that the case did not warrant formal contempt proceedings, and as a result, the contempt charges were dismissed.

Conclusion

People with legal grievances knock at the doors of justice for the protection of their rights and interests they are the Mecca of justice; hence they demand a certain degree of respect in terms of their ruling. Intimidation or disobedience of courts would not lead to an effective and efficient judicial system that can deliver unbiased justice. The judiciary is one of the three pillars of the Indian Parliament and is known as the ‘Watchdog of Democracy’. From guiding to interpreting legislation Courts serve the Constitution in many ways. They demand respect as the saviors of the Constitution. The ultimate savior of democracy is an independent judiciary with an effective enforcement mechanism and with power to set offenders on the path of law. Justice delivered but not administered is only as good as justice not given.