Contempt Of Court And The Extent Of Its Applicability

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• When a person fails to obey an order given by the Court, or makes a statement or commits an act which scandalizes or interferes with judicial proceedings or the administration of justice, that person is said to commit Contempt of Court.
• It is of two types: Civil and Criminal.
• It has been derived from Common Law.
• The Parliament of India enacted the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to define the meaning of contempt, the procedures to deal with it, as well as the penalties for the same.
• The validity of the Contempt of Court Act has been brought under scrutiny from time to time.

INTRODUCTION

Quite recently, the Supreme Court mandated that an action for Contempt of Court can only be taken when there is willful disobedience of the orders given by the Court. When there is willful disobedience of a given order, the person committing such an act or abstinence that results in disobedience can be held liable for Contempt of Court. Contempt of Court, when defined in simple terms, basically means refusal to follow the court’s orders and directions on purpose, or, if it is a case of criminal contempt, making a statement or doing an act which prevents the administration of justice, or hampers judicial proceedings, or scandalises the reputation of the Courts of Law. As a result, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the right to punish a person for its contempt. Although this provision helps to uphold the sanctity of the judicial system, it has often been and can be misused to suppress dissenting voices. It should be noted that the power of Contempt of Court is not absolute. There are certain defences available to a person accused of Contempt of Court.

HISTORY

The concept of Contempt of Court was given in the Common Law followed in England. Under Colonial Rule, Courts established in India adopted the same principle and were thus granted the power to punish people charged with Contempt of Court. The initial legislation, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, allowed High Courts to penalise contempt for subordinate courts as well as against their own judgements and orders. Later on, this power was extended to other courts as well. Contempt of Court is also deemed to be a reasonable restriction on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. In 1961, upon the recommendations of the Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 incorporated the provision that contempt proceedings were to be initiated upon the recommendations by a Law Officer of the Government and not by the Courts themselves. Amendments made in the year 2006 changed the provisions of grounds for contempt to just ‘interfering with the administration of justice’. It also allowed a truthful statement to be a valid ground for defence against contempt.

CONTEMPT AND ITS TYPES

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 specifies that the following institutions have the right to punish for contempt:

• The Supreme Court
• The High Courts
• Certain Administrative Tribunals
• Any Court of Record

Contempt is divided into two types under this Act. As defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, Civil Contempt is willful disobedience of any judgement, decree, direction, order, or writ. It could also mean a willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. As for Criminal Contempt, it includes anything: published, or done, which scandalises, or tends to scandalise, 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 manner. Criminal Contempt can include any false statement made to or about the Judiciary, coercion, attempt to pervert judicial proceedings, attacking witnesses, parties, or judges, recording court proceedings without permission from the court, obstructing officers of the court from performing their functions, as well as verbal abuse and accusations of incompetence or bias against judges.

PROCEDURE OF FILING FOR CONTEMPT

Proceedings are initiated suo motu by the Court. A notice in writing has to be sent to the person charged with contempt to appear before the Court. Detention in custody can also be permitted during the trial. When an act of contempt occurs outside the courtroom, proceedings are carried out after obtaining permission from a relevant Law Officer. High Courts need to obtain permission from the State Advocate General and the Supreme Court needs to take due permission from the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor General of India.

DEFENCES AVAILABLE

There are some defences available to a person charged under Contempt of Court. These are as follows:

• INNOCENT PUBLICATION: As given in Section 3 of the Act, if a person, at the time of publishing, had no reasonable grounds to believe that a proceeding regarding the subject matter of the publication was pending, the publication is termed as ‘innocent’.
• FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING: As given in Section 4 of the Act, fair and accurate reporting of a judicial proceeding and fair criticism of the Judiciary can be exempted from the purview of Contempt of Court.
• APOLOGY: As per Section 12 of the Act, the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be taken back if a genuine and sincere apology is made to the satisfaction of the Court.
• TRUTH: As per Section 13 of the Act, justification by truth is a valid defence against a charge of Contempt of Court, provided that it is in public interest and the intention behind revoking this defence is bona fide.
• COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDING OFFICER: As per Section 6 of the Act, any statement made in good faith against a presiding officer shall not make him guilty of Contempt of Court.
• FAIR CRITICISM: Under Section 5 of the Act, criticism on a case that has been adjudicated does not count as contempt. Moreover, the Judiciary is not immune from fair criticism. Fair criticism is free from malicious intent and an action of contempt can only be initiated when there is a misstatement of facts.

IMPORTANT CASES

• BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS. V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [1965 AIR 10]: Held that a statement would not lead to initiation of contempt proceedings if made against judges in their individual capacity.
• E. M. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD V. T. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR [1970 AIR 2015]: It was observed by the Court that Freedom of Speech and Expression always prevails except when there is substantial and malicious contempt.
• S. MULGAOKAR V. UNKNOWN [1978 3 SCR 162]: Held that there must be cautious use of contempt proceedings and it should be used when there is a major attack on the integrity of the Judiciary.
• DR. D. C. SAXENA V. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA [1996 SCC (7) 216]: Held that proof of mens rea is redundant in a proceeding for contempt. The principle of strict liability applies to contempt cases.
• P. N. DUDA V. V. P. SHIV SHANKAR & ORS [1988 AIR 1208]: Held that the statements made did not obstruct the flow of judicial proceedings however the language could have been worded differently and hence contempt proceedings were not initiated.

PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT

Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India provide that the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts are Courts of Record and have the power to punish for its contempt. This power cannot be nullified or abrogated by the Legislature. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has specified the same punishment for both Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt, which is, an imprisonment term up to 6 months and a fine of Rupees 2000. However, the scope for punishments is limited, as stated by the Supreme Court. For instance, the power to punish for contempt cannot be expanded so as to include if an advocate is guilty of professional misconduct. He or she cannot be debarred from practice as such authority lies only with the Bar Council of India. Additionally, imprisonment for contempt depends on the seriousness and gravity of the act or publication.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, there is no set rule for initiating a proceeding of contempt against someone. Even though there is a clear cut definition of ‘Contempt’ given in our statutes, there is a lack of uniformity in its interpretation. The exact meaning of the definition has been left up to the Courts to decide. What action or statement constitutes an act of contempt is widely dependent on the context of the case. This uncertainty regarding the extent to which the definition of ‘contempt’ can be stretched has led to many frivolous cases of contempt being initiated. Recent examples include the initiation of lawsuits against Kunal Kamra, a comedian and Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate. The Courts need to develop a guideline as to what act or statement actually obstructs the administration of justice and can be classified as Contempt of Court. Such a move will further enhance public faith in the judiciary.