Contempt of Courts Act,1971

Act No : 70

---

Section : Definitions.

2. Definitions.In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) contempt of court " means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) civil contempt " means wilful disobedience to any judg- ment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court ; (c) criminal contempt " means the publication (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii)interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ; (d) "High Court" means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory. 148

---

Read All Comments

Comments

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

Anyone who makes or attempts to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making a false statement on oath in courts aim at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at steak.—Dhanjay Sharma v. State or Haryana 1995 (3) SCC 757

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such a jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of law can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to be made in the course of justice, the court must take serious view of the same.—Rakesh Kaul v. Registrar, High Court of J&K 1994 (5) SCC 759

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

The fact that the order appointing the receiver is improperly procured is no justification for interfering with him since the validity can be challenged by application to the court.—In re Mukunda Chandra Halder 1994 CrLJ (NOC) 189

Quick Links

• Recent Comments
• Recent Citations
• Bare Acts Alphabetically