Contempt of Courts Act,1971
Act No : 70
Section :
Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or aHigh Court.
14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court than its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall- (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged ; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge ; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the Court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the 153 statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case. (4) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify: Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money as the Court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the Court : Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.
Read All Comments
Prakash Yedhula
wrote on 03 May 2009
The power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court being courts of record under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and that the jurisdiction vested is a special one and not derived from any other statute but derived only from arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution.—Pritam Pal Singh v. High Court of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904
Prakash Yedhula
wrote on 03 May 2009
The judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must be able to take steps to restore as early and quickly as possible.—In re Vinay Chandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584
Prakash Yedhula
wrote on 03 May 2009
The fact that the process is to summary does not means that the procedural requirement, viz. that an opportunity of meeting the charge is denied to the contemner. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated, depend, upon the circumstances so long as the gift of the specific allegation is made clear or otherwise the contemner is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always necessary to formulate the change is a specific allegation. Despite the objection that the judge deals with the contempt himself and the contemner has little opportunity to defend himself there is a residue case where not only it is justifiable to punish on the spot but it is the only realistic way of dealing with certain offender.
