WINTER

Template
By: KIRAN MISHRA BBA. LLB, Div- B Roll no.- 23

 Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the

authority, justice, and dignity of the court. The House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., has rightly enumerated threefold purposes of the law of contempt: a. b. To enable the parties to litigation and the witnesses to come before the Court without outside interference; To enable the Courts to try cases without such interference;

c.

To ensure that authority and administration of law are

maintained.

TYPES: (A) CIVIL CONTEMPT (B) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT Civil contempt generally involves the failure to perform an act that is ordered by a court as a means to enforce the rights of individuals or to secure remedies for parties in a civil action.
MD. IKRAM HUSSAIN V. STATE of U.P

Criminal contempt involves behavior that assaults the dignity of the court or impairs the ability of the court to conduct its work.
STATE OF A.P vs. PRAKASH RAO

Article 19(1) (a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression while Article 19(2) empowers the Central government to impose restrictions on this freedom, one of the grounds for restriction being that of contempt.

Another limit- Articles 129 and 215 that gives the power of contempt
to the High Courts of the states and the Supreme Court. The basis of contempt law is that in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary, powers need to be vested in it to implement its decisions and carry on its duties without fear or fervor. As Justice Markandey Katju noted, In a democracy, the purpose of the contempt power can only be to enable the court to function. The power

is not to prevent the master (the people) from criticizing the servant (the
judge) if the latter does not function properly or commits misconduct.

Art. 129, 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.
Meaning of a court of record A court of record hasa. Power to determine its own jurisdiction, and b. It has power to punish for its contempt Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra Mohd. Aslam vs. Union of India

CONTEMT OF SUB-ORDINATE COURT: expansive interpretation to Article 129.

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT: Simple imprisonment not extending beyond six months, or a fine which may extend to Rs 2000/- or both.

Article 215 of the Constitution of India states 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.

WINTER
Template

High Court: A court of record Besides, High Court has twofold powers: a. It has the power to determine the question about its own jurisdiction; b. It has inherent power to punish for its contempt summarily.
In Sukhdev v. Teja Singh, the Supreme Court refused to transfer contempt proceedings filed against the petitioner in the Pepsu High Court to some other High Court. The Constitution vests in the High Court itself to deal with its contempt and therefore, transfer of contempt proceedings from the Pepsu to another High Court would deprive the High Court of the jurisdiction vested in it by the constitution.

The Supreme Court has ruled that under Art.129, it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the contempt of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which performs judicial functions and is subordinate to the High Court. The Court can take suo motu cognizance of the contempt of the Tribunal.

In Income-tax Appellate Tribunal v. V.K. Agarwal, the Court characterized the letter by the Secretary, Ministry of Law as an attempt to affect the decision making and a clear threat to their independent functioning. Thus, the secretary was held guilty of committing contempt of the Tribunal as he questioned the of the members of the Tribunal in deciding a specific case and asked them to explain the judicial order which they had passed.

In Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary that there should be an actual interference with the course of administration of justice. It is enough if the offending act or publication tends in way to so interfere. In Arundhati Roy, In re, it was observed that even when criminal contempt was found established and the contemnor had not shown any repentance or regret or remorse', a symbolic punishment of imprisonment for one day and fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed keeping in mind that the respondent was a woman.

In Amrit Nahata v. Union of India, the Court ruled that a contempt petition cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner as a matter of right. The matter is primarily between the Court and the contemnor. It is, therefore, the Court to allow or refuse withdrawal in the light of the broad facts of the case.

Reasons for the uncertainty in the law of contempt a) No certain definition of contempt in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 b) No definition of what constitutes scandalizing the court or what prejudices, or interferes with the course of justice. The contempt power in a democracy is only to enable the court to function effectively, and not to protect the self esteem of an individual

judge.
It can be adequately inferred that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is of paramount importance in the context of sustaining the concept of justice. It aides to make the process of administering justice expeditious as well as upholds the dignity and faith the people have bestowed in the judicial system of the country.