Explanation of 16(1) of contempt of court act, 1971

Dear Sir,

"Contempt of his own court" means that if the judge acts or omits to act in a way which is regarded as contempt of court, then even the judge is not free from punishment. The judge can also be held liable for "contempt of his own court", the court that is presided by him. 

Regards,

Zeta 

Greetings,

Contempt of his own court signifies that even a person, who is in the capacity of a judicial magistrate or a court judge, if indulges in an act that comes under the banner of Contempt of Court is not safe from prosecution for his/her deeds.

The remark ‘his own court or of any court’ signifies the contempt of the very court they are appointed in or any other court in the judicial system that is beyond their jurisdiction.

Hope this helps.

Regards   

The essential essence of democracy is a free and independent court dedicated to the purpose of delivering justice. The judiciary is rightfully referred to as the protector of the constitution; consequently, it is legally referred to as the saver of mortal rights. The judiciary is the most revered of all the branches of democracy on the world. The Judiciary and Judicial Officers are held in high regard in the public arena because they area unit entrusted with the crucial and noble task of bringing justice to countless folks who are oppressed, destitute, and approach the court with a ray of hope to influence their long-fought legal battle to a righteous finish. As a result, in order to protect the quality of the judiciary, the courts have the authority to take action against persons who are charged with ‘contempt of court.' The Asian nation experienced the emergence of three legal instruments that led to the ultimate rule on contempt of court that is still in effect today, The Contempt of Court Act 1971. The current Act arose from the Contempt of Court Act of 1926, and hence the Contempt of Court Act of 1952. Because the Republic of India was a British dominion territory prior to this legislation, a people's Common Law principles dominated this region of law. In reality, the terms of this statute express these concepts explicitly. This act was the primary piece of legislation governing the act of contempt of court in the Republic of India. It was divided into three pieces.

This legislation aimed to achieve the following dual goals:

1) resolving uncertainties about the supreme court Division's abilities in effortful contempt of court; and

2) moulding and limiting the supreme court Division's ability in effortful contempt of court.

Section two of this statute discussed the supreme court's ability to exercise identical jurisdiction, powers, and authority in respect of contempt of Courts inferior to it, using the same procedure and application as it would have used if the contempt occurred with it. However, the condition to the current provision prevents the Supreme Court from exercising the powers granted in section two just in case the Contempt is a criminal offence punishable by the Indian Penal Court.

Greetings!

Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, applies specifically to "judges, magistrates or other persons acting judicially". They are liable for contempt of their own court or any other court in the same manner as any other individual except when they make observations while hearing appeals against judgments passed by lower courts.

Contempt of court is invoked when someone acts in a way that scandalizes the authority or lowers the dignity of a court or interferes in the due course of a judicial proceeding or in the administration of justice.

Hope this helps 

Regards