CONTEMPT OF COURT - LAW SEARCH INDIA

INTRODUCTION:

The faith in constitution is dependent on the functioning of the judiciary which is one of a branch of government. The purpose of the law is to meet the ends of justice and the judiciary is imbibed with the function to construed the said law, settle any lis and to administer the justice. Besides that, it is a constitutional institution that ensures the enforcement of law and to determines the constitutionality of law. Since the court is custodian and protector of rights of the citizen it is also significant that the citizen also maintains the respect and dignity of the court. However, it often accrues that someone would go beyond criticism and vilify the court, this eventually impacts independence or judiciary and also faith of people in it.

To keep every institute, body and citizen etc. within its limit and maintain reverence towards courts there is constitutional as well as statutory provisions and rules that will govern the contempt of the court. The law also confer power on the court to punish for its contempt and for the contempt of lower courts which is discussed further in this blog.

WHAT IS CONTEMPT OF COURT?

Contempt of court means disrespect or demean or vilify the court. The contempt of court is stating something disrespectful remark for vilification, or not complying with the order of the court or interfering with the process of court. Therefore, it is crucial that law has to confer power on the courts to punish for its contempt so as to safeguard its independence and to maintain dignity of judiciary. There are certain exceptions that will not be computed as contempt as in section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 14 of the Act. Innocent publication, fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings etc.

LAW ON CONTEMPT OF COURT:

Constitution: Article 129: It envisage power of the supreme court to punish for its contempt of itself.

Article 142(2) allows the apex court to pass any order to conduct an investigation or punishment for its contempt.

Contempt of court Act, 1971 (hereinafter mentioned as Act): It defines the limits of power of courts in punishing for contempt of court, it also set the procedure in relation thereto. First Act was ordained in 1926, then in 1952, and finally the current Act of 1971.

Supreme Court rules 1975: Under section 23 of the Act & under Article 145 of Constitution of India Supreme court has enacted the rules with the approval of president. Rule no. 3 states that in case of contempt court may take:

Suo moto, or
On petition made by Attorney General or Solicitor General, or
On petition made by anyone, in criminal contempt with consent in writing of Attorney General or Solicitor General.

TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF COURT:

There are two types of contempt as under:

Section 2(a) of the Act: define the contempt as civil contempt or criminal contempt

Section 2(b) of the Act: civil contempt means which means willful disobedience to any judgment decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to court.

Section 2(c) of the Act: Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or 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 scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court;
or Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding;
or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner

Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others: (2003) 11 SCC 1: Court here in this case emphasized on “willful disobedience”: “….an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something, which the law forbids or with the specific intention to fail to do something which the law requires to be done. Wilfulness signifies deliberate action done with evil intent and bad motive and purpose….”

PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT:

Section 10 & 11: Power of High court to try and punish for contempt of itself or any other subordinate court within its jurisdiction irrespective of the fact whether contempt is committed within or outside the jurisdiction of said High court.
Section 14: Contempt in the presence of court or during hearing court:
- Inform in writing concerning contempt charge;
- Give opportunity to defend for the said charge;
- Record evidence;
- Hearing;
- Pending the determination of charges against person charged court may direct detention in custody;
- Discharge or punish as the case may be.
Section 15: Criminal contempt:
- Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by:
  - Attorney general (AG);
  - Any person with written consent of AG;
  - In case of Delhi such officer as central government specify via notification;
Section 17: Notice must be served personally to the person charged it should be accompanied with the copy of reference or motion as the case may be. If person charged abscond or avoid service court may order attachment of property as provided in civil procedure code, 1908.
Section 18: Criminal contempt shall be heard by bench of not less than 2 judges.

PROCEDURE AS PER THE RULES OF 1975:

Petition: Rule 4
- Petition contains name, place, description of the petitioner and person charged, also include nature of contempt, material facts;
- Petition along with affidavit;
- Documents relied;
Notice: Rule 5
- If the court find no prima facie case court will dismiss the petition;
- If the court is satisfied that case exist court may issue notice to contemner.
Reply: Rule 6
- Person charged will file reply with affidavit.
Warrant: Rule 7
- If court is satisfied that person charged is absconding or evading service or fails to appear court may direct a warrant bailable or non-bailable.
Warrant of commitment & detention: When a person is adjudged guilty & is sentenced warrant of commitment & detention will be made out which will remain in force until cancelled by court or executed.

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT:

Section 12: Punishment: Simple imprisonment for 6 months or fine upto two thousand rupees or both;

In civil contempt court may impose fine and if necessary, where fine may not meet the ends of justice, instead of simple imprisonment, court may direct to detain in civil prison not exceeding 6 months.

Where contempt is in respect of undertaking given to court by a company person responsible for conduct of business of company at the time of commission of contempt will be charged for the same.

APPEAL AGAINST CONTEMPT:

Decision of Judge	Appeal against contempt.	Section and limitation to file appeal.
Order of single bench of High Court	Appeal to not less than 2 judges of same High court.	Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act & With in 30 days.
Order of Division Bench	Appeal to Supreme court	Section 19(1) (b) of the Act & within 90 days from the date of order.
Judicial commissioner of union territory	Appeal to Supreme Court	Section 19(4) (b) of the Act & within 60 days.

D. N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 26: In the said case 3 judges bench of apex court observed as under:

A contempt is a matter between court and contemnor and anyone who files case, only brings to notice of court those facts which constitute contempt;
High court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from article 215 of the Constitution and right to appeal is a statutory right under section 19 of the Act. An appeal is maintainable under the Act only when High court invoked its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and not otherwise.
When court does not impose any punishment is it means Court do not exercise its power and therefore appeal will not survive.
Right to appeal under section 19 is only remedy for the contemnor and petitioner cannot file an appeal under section 19 when appeal dismissed or contemnor not punished erroneously. Such petitioner can move to apex court under Article 136 of Constitution.

STANDARD OF PROOF FOR CONTEMPT:

Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204: In paragraph 11 court observed as follows:

11.  Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities.

EXTENT OF POWER OF COURT:

Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352:

“….the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. ……if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order.”….

R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2000) 4 SCC 400: Paragraph no. 7 court evaluated that:

7. We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court's dignity and majesty of law.

CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDY:

Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307: Hon’ble Court in para 18 & 19 opined that “

…. when the matter relates to the infringement of a decree or decretal order embodies rights, as between the parties, it is not expedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing the decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Thus, the violation of permanent injunction can be set right in executing the proceedings and not the contempt proceedings….”

“…. In case there is a final order, the remedy lies in execution and not in an action for contempt or disobedience or breach under Order 39 Rule 2-A. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for enforcement of decree passed in a civil suit….”

“…. Order 39 Rule 2-A are available only during the pendency of the suit and not after conclusion of the trial of the suit. Therefore, any undertaking given to the court during the pendency of the suit on the basis of which the suit itself has been disposed of becomes a part of the decree and breach of such undertaking is to be dealt with in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC and not by means of contempt proceedings….”

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CONTEMPT OF COURT:

If a person defies the dignity of court under the impression of freedom of speech and expression which is a fundamental right under Article 19 guaranteed under the Constitution then court have power to punish for the same under Article 129 and 215. Moreover, right under Article 19 is guaranteed along with certain restrictions which as in 19(2). Contempt of court is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Supreme court is the custodian of fundamental rights however court is also obliged to maintain the administration of justice. Law of contempt can be traced back form English law but still we find a conflict between the administration of justice and non-compromisable fundamental rights.

Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of U.P. (1953) AIR 10 SC:

A constitution bench observed as under:

“…Contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened".

Rustom Cowasjee Cooper v/s Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 298:

…..while fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives, or tending to bring Judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken".

Het Ram Beniwal v. Raghuveer Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 340:

"Every citizen has a fundamental right to speech, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Contempt of court is one of the restrictions on such right. We are conscious that the power under the Act has to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. If there is a calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, the courts will exercise their jurisdiction to punish the offender for committing contempt".

Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa and Another, (1974) 1 SCC 374: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed as under:

"…the dilemma of the law of contempt arises because of the constitutional need to balance two great but occasionally conflicting principles — freedom of expression and fair and fearless justice…”

“….the key word is "justice", not "judge"; the keynote thought is unobstructed public justice, not the self-defense of a judge; the corner-stone of the contempt law is the accommodation of two constitutional values — the right of free speech and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be substantial and mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel".

CONTEMPT OF COURT BY AN ADVOCATE:

Mahipal Singh Rana vs. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 335:The issue before the three judges’ bench was whether on conviction for criminal contempt, an advocate can be allowed to practice? Court held that court have supervisory power and not bar councils to regulate right to appear, practice and conduct in court. It is within the jurisdiction of the court to bar right to appear and practice till the contempt is purged even in the absence of the suspension or termination of enrollment no.