CONTEMPT OF COURT.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Disregards, disrespectful of or disobedient towards a Court of Law, in specific, wilful denial of majesty of Law in its working and proceedings towards delivery of justice process is called the Contempt of Court and considered as an offence. Wilfully and deliberately denial of the obedience of the Court may also attract Contempt proceedings. It is the discretion of the Court that it may impose sanctions in the form of fine or imprisonment to the person found guilty of Contempt of Court.

TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

There are two types of Contempt of Court:

First being, the Civil Contempt which is enlisted under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Act (LXX of 1971) and describes as wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court.[1]

Second being, the Criminal Contempt which is enlisted under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Act (LXX of 1971) and describes as 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;[2]

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH CONTEMPT OF COURT

1.  Stating of Court Order

2.  Knowledge of the Court’s Order by the Respondent

3.  Ability of the Respondent to comply with Court’s Order

4.  Wilful denial or disobedience of the Court’s Order

APPLICATION OF LIMITATION PERIOD

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Act (LXX of 1971) deals with the limitation period in within which step(s) have to be performed. It computes that the limitation period of 1 year from the date when the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION V/S CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India provides all citizens with the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India gives the power of Contempt of Court to the Higher Judiciary, and this power confers the freedom granted by Article 19 (1) (a).

Further, Freedom of Speech and Expression should considered and be treated as a primary and basic right, and power of Contempt should be secondary and subordinate to it. India, being the largest democracy, people should have the right to question and criticize every part of the government, whether be it the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary.

Taking Judiciary, for the sake of brevity, the idea of safeguarding judges from public opinion(s) and criticism is to uphold the majesty of law and ends of Justice, rather doing so, it would harm the general and moral sentiments of the people, would cause dodgy and dissatisfaction among the people of the country.

CASE LAWS

1.  T. SUDHAKAR PRASAD V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[3]

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case explained the contempt jurisdiction as a special jurisdiction, this jurisdiction must be exercised to uphold the dignity of Hon’ble Courts and majesty of Law, and further with great emphasis, it was stated and took into account that the contempt jurisdiction enables the enforcement of deterrence upon its avoidance.

2.  J.R. PARASHAR V. PRASHANT BHUSHAN[4]

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the present case explained the purpose of the Contempt Law, it was stated that the civic society is based within the respect for the law, if everyone chooses to interrupt or oppose the Law, no civil society will exist in any respect.

3.  COMMISSIONER, AGRA V. ROHTAS SINGH[5]

Contempt Proceeding(s) are between the Hon’ble Court and the Contemnor rather than the prosecution of criminal(s) and is a quasi-judicial proceeding(s) which are conducted in the Court of Law.

4.  SUPREME COURT BAR ASOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA[6]

Any person or the subordinate Court which brings the suit upon which proceeding(s) can be initiated, Contempt being the subject matter into the consideration of the higher Court, that person or subordinate Court is only provided with the status of informant and not as a litigant.

AMENDMENT TO THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 IN THE YEAR 2006.

Both, truth and good faith, none of them were mentioned in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Act (LXX of 1971) as defences to the offence of Contempt. It was rectified in by way of amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act in the year 2006 and which are to be proclaimed in a materialistic and sober manner. Further, the amendment clarifies, the Court has a right to impose punishment barred upon certain condition(s) to be fulfilled, when it is satisfied that substantially interferes or tends to substantially interfere with the due course of Justice.

CONCLUSION

The behaviour which is disobedient, disregarded and dis respectful in specific genre as stated hereinabove; towards the Court of Law, which scandalises or tends to scandalise, prejudices or tends to prejudice, interferes or tends to interferes, such conduct must be recognised as Contempt of Court and must be punished with fine or imprisonment; barred by the limitation period and pre-requisites of the contempt proceeding(s), as if such conduct creates obstruction in the due course of Justice, disharmonise the judicial system and its process, and upholds the majesty of Law.

The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act which defines Contempt as Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt when read in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of India, which gives the citizen(s) Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) when read with Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India which gives higher judiciary the power to exercise its contempt jurisdiction, limits the use and narrow the jurisdiction of Article 19 (1) (a) and they somehow bars the citizen(s) to exercise the specific right and freedom.

Further, the Contempt of Courts Act was interpreted and practised as deterrent tool for the Indian Judicial system so as to create respect for the judiciary and smooth functioning powers and authorities with addition to complete safeguard of the judicial officers, rather it must be used as a tool for the person(s) performing the conducts which disrupts the functioning of the Courts in India and if this right would be exercised within the jurisdiction of the Court it would create the positive impact towards the enhancement of the respect of the judiciary and its organs.

[1] BARE ACT - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 ACT (LXX OF 1971).

[2] BARE ACT - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 ACT (LXX OF 1971).

[3] (2001) 1 SCC

[4] (2001) 6 SCC 735

[5] (1998) 1 SCC 349

[6] (1998) 4 SCC 409 RT