CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of court is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law. Being disrespectful to legal authorities in the courtroom, or willfully failing to obey a court order may attract Contempt of Court proceedings. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Exploration and in-depth study of any law, proviso, or act require an understanding of its basic concept. In layman’s terms, “contempt of court” can be defined as an offense of being disrespectful or disobedient towards the court of law and its officers. Contempt can essentially be of two kinds:
- Being disrespectful to the judge or an attorney or subsequently causing any form of a disturbance in the courtroom particularly even after being warned by the judge
- Willfully failing or refusing to obey an order given by the court such as failure to pay alimony or child support.
The court has the power to punish for contempt. The punishment can be in the form of fines or incarceration. Jail time is usually a mere threat, however, if imposed is mostly found to be brief.
Even though our Constitution does not define the expression “contempt of court”, as per the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, “contempt” can be defined as an offense of showing disrespect to the dignity or authority of a court. The act further continues to classify contempt into two broad categories namely civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt can be defined as the willful disobedience to any judgment, direction, decree, writ, order, or other processes of a court Or the willful breach of an undertaking that is given to the court.
While Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is a publication that may result in scandalizing the court by lowering its authority, interference in the due course of any judicial proceeding, or an obstruction in the administration of justice. However, certain things such as fair and reasonable criticism of judicial act and commentary on the administrative side of the judiciary or innocent publication and distribution of a certain matter do not constitute to be contempt of court. In India, the contempt law is mainly governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it empowers the court to punish acts of contempt because of which the Supreme Court and High Courts, by the virtue of being courts of record hold inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court.
In the case ofAshok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Or, the proviso of section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which defines the term civil contempt was thoroughly examined by the Supreme Court. The court held that the term “willful” under this particular section means an act or omission that is carried out intentionally and voluntarily with a specific intent to do something that the law forbids or to fail to do something which the law requires to be done. In short, with a bad purpose either to disregard or disobey the law. This mainly signifies a deliberate action that is done with evil intent or with a bad motive. Thus, for an act to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of being executed by a person charged in normal circumstances. It shouldn’t require any sort of an extraordinary effort and nor should it be, either wholly or in part, dependent on any omission or act of a third party for their compliance.
Civil contempt also involves a willful breach of an undertaking. In the case of Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju& Anr., it was observed by the High Court of Karnataka that the orders of the court have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in an appeal or a revision. The court not only elucidated the principles relating to the contempt law but also remarked that the definition of civil contempt given by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 not only includes disobedience but also the willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. What the public interest requires is that the solemn undertaking that is given to a court to obtain any benefit for that matter should not be breached willfully.
Thus, no litigant shall be allowed to wriggle away from an undertaking given to the court as it will lead to the opening of dangerous trends and ultimately defeat the very purpose of giving undertakings to the court. It was also observed that once the litigants provide an undertaking to a court they must comply with it in all circumstances wherein the only exceptions would be statutory bar or fraud. An undertaking cannot be broken with impunity and then be justified as the breach of an undertaking given to a court is a very serious matter and have to be dealt with utmost seriousness.
The Supreme Court holds constitutional powers under article 129 read with Article 142 (2) of the Constitution of India and subsequently, the High Courts also have powers vested in them under article 215 of the Constitution to punish for contempt. The same was dwelled upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. In this particular case, the apex court examined the powers and further remarked that the inherent jurisdiction of the court of record to punish for contempt cannot be taken away by any act of parliament. It was also mentioned in the judgment that the parliament’s power of legislation on the subject cannot be exercised such that it stultifies the status as well as the dignity of the Supreme Court or High Courts, however, such legislation can serve as a guide for determination of the nature of punishment that a particular court may impose in case of an established contempt.
In the case of Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P and Ors the Supreme Court once again highlighted that the powers of contempt are inherent and thus the provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said pre-existing situation. It was also mentioned in the judgment that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are not in derogation rather only in addition to Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution. Therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be used for regulating or limiting the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the two Articles of the Indian constitution. In this case, it was additionally held by the apex court that the high court cannot create its power or assume the power to inflict a new type of punishment other than the ones that are recognized and accepted by section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Any violation of terms of a consent order and connected matters amounts to the violation of the court’s order and thus is punishable as per the first limb of section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the same was pointed out in the case of Rama Narang Vs. RameshNarang and Anr.. In this case, the respondent had put forward an argument related to the maintainability of the contempt petition that was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. This was done by taking a plea that the consent order recorded before the court did not comprise of an undertaking or an injunction as such of the court and therefore it could not form the grounds for any proceedings for contempt. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the consent terms which was arrived at between the parties have been successfully incorporated in the order that was passed by the court and therefore, any violation of the said terms will amount to a violation of the court’s order and will thus be punishable under the provision of 2 (b) of the act.
Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt. There are mainly four essentials that constitute criminal contempt and these would be :
1 Publication of any matter
2. Scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court
3. Prejudice or interference with the due course of any judicial proceeding
4. Obstruction/interference with the administration of justice in any other manner.
Conclusion
This brings us to a conclusion that anything that impairs or curtails the freedom of limits of any judicial proceeding or any conduct that tends to bring the administration and authority of law into disregard or disrespect or to interfere with or even prejudice parties to their witnesses during litigation that consists of words spoken or written that obstruct certain administration of justice or publishing words which tend to bring the administration of justice into contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any matter or cause would amount to be the subject of criminal or civil proceedings. In short, contempt can be said to be an act or omission that interferes or tends to interfere in the administration of justice. To constitute contempt, it is not necessary for there to be an actual interference in the administration of justice. If the actors complained about or even tend to interfere or if there is an attempt to interfere in the administration of justice that may be taken as contempt.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.