Contempt of court refers to any action that defies or disobeys the authority or dignity of a court of law. This can include behaviours such as disrupting court proceedings, wilfully disobeying court orders, or making derogatory remarks about judges or the judiciary. Contempt of court is a serious offence and can lead to punishment, including imprisonment or a fine.
To address the issue of contempt of court in India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted. This act defines and regulates the law of contempt in India, outlining the various types of contempt, the procedures for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings, and the penalties for contemptuous behaviour. The act is designed to protect the authority and dignity of the courts and to ensure that justice is administered fairly and impartially.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has played a critical role in upholding the independence and integrity of the Indian judiciary. Despite its importance, the act has also faced criticism from some who argue that it can be used to stifle free speech and dissent.
Type of Contempt:-
Certainly! Here's an expanded section on the "Types of Contempt" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognizes two main types of contempt - civil contempt and criminal contempt. These types are distinguished by the nature and purpose of the conduct that constitutes contempt.
Civil Contempt:
Civil contempt arises when a person wilfully disobeys a court order, direction, or judgement that requires them to do or refrain from doing something. This type of contempt can also occur when a person breaches an undertaking given to the court. Civil contempt proceedings are usually initiated by the aggrieved party or the court itself. The primary objective of civil contempt proceedings is to secure compliance with the court's orders and to prevent any interference with the administration of justice. The punishment for civil contempt can include a fine, imprisonment, or both.
Criminal Contempt:
Criminal contempt occurs when a person intentionally interferes with the administration of justice, undermines the authority or dignity of the court, or obstructs the course of justice in any way. This type of contempt can take many forms, including scandalising the court, insulting the judge, intimidating a witness, or disrupting court proceedings. Criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated by the court on its motion or the complaint of any person. The objective of criminal contempt proceedings is to punish the offender for their conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The punishment for criminal contempt can include a fine, imprisonment, or both.
It is important to note that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 imposes strict standards and procedures for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings. These procedures are designed to ensure that the power to punish for contempt is exercised judiciously, fairly, and following the principles of natural justice. The act also provides for the right of appeal against contempt orders, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected.
Which courts are entitled to initiate the proceedings of contempt of court?
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, both the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have the power to initiate proceedings of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court of India has the power to punish for its own contempt as well as for contempt of any subordinate courts or tribunals in the country. The High Courts also have the power to punish for their own contempt, as well as for contempt of subordinate courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions.
In addition to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, subordinate courts and tribunals can also initiate contempt proceedings, but only for contempt committed in their presence. This means that if someone is found to have committed contemptuous behaviour in a subordinate court or tribunal, the judge or magistrate of that court can initiate proceedings against them.
How subordinate judiciary can initiate the proceedings of contempt of the court?
The subordinate judiciary can initiate contempt proceedings against individuals who engage in contemptuous behaviour in their presence. The process for initiating proceedings is similar to that in the higher judiciary, with the judge or magistrate issuing a notice to the accused and proceeding with the case if the response is unsatisfactory.
It is important to note that the power of the subordinate judiciary to initiate contempt proceedings is limited to behaviour that occurs in their presence. If the alleged contemptuous behaviour occurs outside of the court, the proceedings must be initiated by the higher judiciary. Additionally, any person who wishes to initiate contempt proceedings must have the permission of the court to do so, unless they are a public servant acting in the course of their official duties.
Punishment for contempt of court
The punishment for contempt of court can vary depending on the type of contempt committed. In general, the court can impose fines, imprisonment, or both.
For civil contempt, which involves wilful disobedience of a court order, the court can impose imprisonment until the contemnor complies with the order or pays the amount specified in the order.
For criminal contempt, which involves actions that obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice, the court can impose imprisonment for a maximum period of six months and/or a fine of up to Rs. 2,000. Expert Consultation
It's important to note that punishment for contempt of court is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the severity of the offence and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contains several important provisions that govern the law of contempt in India. These provisions define the scope and types of contempt, set out the procedures for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings, and prescribe the punishments for contemptuous conduct.
Section 2 of the act defines the various terms used in the act, including "civil contempt", "criminal contempt", "contempt of court", and "high court". This section provides clarity on the meaning of these terms, which is crucial for interpreting and applying the provisions of the act.
Section 12 of the act deals with the initiation of contempt proceedings. It provides that contempt proceedings can be initiated either on a motion made by the court itself or on a motion made by any other person with the permission of the court. This section also lays down the rules regarding the form and content of the notice to be served on the alleged contemnor, and the procedure to be followed during the hearing of the contempt proceedings.
Section 15 of the act sets out the punishments that can be imposed for contempt of court. The punishment for civil contempt can include a fine, imprisonment, or both. In the case of criminal contempt, the punishment can also include a fine, imprisonment, or both. However, the maximum punishment for criminal contempt is more severe, with a maximum imprisonment term of six months.
Section 17 of the act deals with the procedure to be followed during the hearing of the contempt proceedings. This section provides that the alleged contemnor has the right to be heard in his defence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence in his favour. The court is also required to record its reasons for finding the alleged contemnor guilty or not guilty of contempt.
Finally, Section 19 of the act provides for the right to appeal against orders passed in contempt proceedings. This section enables the accused to challenge the decision of the court if he believes that it is erroneous or unjust.
Controversies and Landmark Cases:-
Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case
Kamra v. Attorney General of India
Siddique Kappan Case
Anil Ambani vs. Ericsson Case
-
Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case: In August 2020, noted lawyer and human rights activist Prashant Bhushan was held guilty of contempt of court by the Supreme Court of India. Bhushan had criticised the court and its chief justices in a tweet, alleging that the court had failed to uphold democracy and protect human rights. The case sparked a widespread debate about the limits of free speech and the need to protect the independence of the judiciary. In September 2020, the court imposed a fine of one rupee on Bhushan, who refused to apologise for his comments. The case continues to be a subject of much discussion and debate.
-
Kamra v. Attorney General of India: In November 2020, the Supreme Court of India issued notice to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja for their tweets criticising the court. The court also sought the Attorney General's consent to initiate contempt proceedings against the two individuals. The case raised questions about the extent to which individuals can criticise court judgments on social media, and the need to balance the right to freedom of speech with the power of the courts to maintain their authority and dignity.
-
Siddique Kappan Case: In October 2020, journalist Siddique Kappan was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police while he was on his way to report on the Hathras gang rape case. Kappan was charged with several offences, including sedition and promoting enmity between communities. He was also charged with contempt of court for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the judiciary. The case sparked concerns about press freedom and the need to protect the rights of journalists.
-
Anil Ambani vs. Ericsson Case: In February 2019, the Supreme Court of India held Reliance Communications Chairman Anil Ambani guilty of contempt of court for failing to pay dues to Ericsson India. The court had earlier directed Ambani to pay Rs. 550 crore to Ericsson India within four weeks, failing which he would face contempt proceedings. The case raised questions about the power of the courts to enforce their orders and the consequences of failing to comply with court directives.
These cases have also underlined the importance of ensuring that the law of contempt is applied fairly and impartially and that the rights of the accused are protected at all times.
Key Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Rules, 2006
The Contempt of Courts (Constitution of Benches for Adjudication of Contempt) Rules, 1975
The Contempt of Courts (Disclosure of Information) Rules, 1976
The Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1980
The Contempt of Courts (Himachal Pradesh High Court) Rules, 1975
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is accompanied by a set of rules that provide further details and guidance on the procedures and processes to be followed in cases of contempt. These rules include:
-
The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Rules, 2006: This rule amends the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975, and provides for the filing of a written statement of defence by the person charged with contempt. It also allows for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and provides for the recording of evidence in the presence of the person charged with contempt.
-
The Contempt of Courts (Constitution of Benches for Adjudication of Contempt) Rules, 1975: This rule provides for the constitution of benches of the High Court for the adjudication of contempt cases. It also specifies the qualifications of the judges who can sit on such benches.
-
The Contempt of Courts (Disclosure of Information) Rules, 1976: This rule specifies the circumstances under which information relating to contempt proceedings can be disclosed. It provides that such information can only be disclosed with the permission of the court.
-
The Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1980: This rule provides additional guidance on the procedures to be followed in contempt cases before the Gujarat High Court. It specifies the forms to be used for filing petitions, affidavits and other documents and provides for the service of notices and orders.
-
The Contempt of Courts (Himachal Pradesh High Court) Rules, 1975: This rule provides similar guidance as the Gujarat High Court rules, but specifically for contempt cases before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
These rules play an important role in ensuring that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are applied consistently and fairly. They provide clarity and guidance on the procedures to be followed in contempt cases and help to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a vital piece of legislation that aims to uphold the authority and dignity of the judiciary by punishing those who interfere with its functioning or undermine its authority. The act defines and codifies the law of contempt, and provides for the punishment of contemptuous behaviour. The act is significant because it seeks to balance the need to protect the independence of the judiciary with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.Expert Consultation
Through this article, we have explored the various provisions of the act, including the different types of contempt, the punishments that can be imposed for contemptuous behaviour, and the procedures that must be followed in contempt cases. Expert Consultation We have also examined some of the recent controversies and landmark cases related to the act, which have raised important questions about the limits of free speech and the need to protect the rights of individuals.
Looking ahead, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is likely to continue to be a subject of much debate and discussion. As the law evolves and new cases are heard, it will be important to ensure that the law is applied fairly and impartially and that the rights of all individuals are protected. Ultimately, the act serves as a reminder of the importance of the rule of law and the need to respect the authority of the courts as an essential pillar of democracy.