Apology must be such as serving a large purpose, as a deterrent to those who treat the orders of the court with callous disregard or indifference. The ritualistic and formal apology in affidavit is not sufficient.—K.P. Isar & Sons (P) Ltd. V. K. Prathydhanan 1992 Cr LJ 2587

Where the unconditional apology is offered it has its due reflection on the question of punishment and it cannot completely absolute contempt.—1990 SCC (Cri) 626

The Supreme Court being the apex court and a superior court of record has power to determine its jurisdiction under article 129 of the Constitution and it has jurisdiction to initiate or entertain proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts.—Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat 1991 Cr LJ 3086

The order of holding a person guilty of having committed contempt of court cannot be reviewed by the court which is amenable to correction in an appeal under s. 19 of the Act.—Senior Sub Judge v. R. A. Kawzal 1991 Cr LJ 2432

Where the allegation is one of the disobedience of the order of the court where it is not possible to attribute definite knowledge of order of the court to party proceeded against, the party shall be exonerated.—M.J. Maulana Hasan Ali v. Amiruddin 1992 Cr LJ 1986

In the instant case the court held the contemner, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt of the court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to threaten, over awe and overbear the court by using insulting disrespectful and threatening language and committed him of the said offence. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Act 129 is sui generis. The jurisdiction to take cognizance by any statute. Neither the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 nor the Advocates Act, 1961, can be preserved into service to restrict the said jurisdiction.—Ir re Vinayachandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584

It is essential to take strong measures to see that justice becomes available to all, who would not get it if lawful orders of competent courts are violated which would result in people with muscle and money power alone being able to settle score on streets.—State of Orissa v. Bisaya Mohanty 1993 Cr LJ 3311

An apology is not a weapon of the defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is it intended to operate as panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, if an injury inflicted and the earnest desire to make such separation as lies in the wrongdoer’s power.—DDA v. Skipper Construction 1995 (3) SCC 507

The contemner cannot be let off or an apology which is far from sincere, hollow no remorse, no regret, and merely a device to escape the rigour of the law.—M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of P&H AIR 1981 SC 1834

In a case where a senior IAS officer after having been found guilty of contempt for deliberately not implementing the order of the Supreme Court was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month, the court observed that, if the order of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be willfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting the sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in the country.—J Vasudavan v. T.R. Dhananjaya 1995 (6) SCC 249