Meaning of contempt of court

Contempt of court refers to any act or behaviour that disrespects or obstructs the authority, dignity, or proceedings of a court of law. It is considered a form of misconduct that interferes with the administration of justice or undermines the authority of the court. In India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the legislation that deals with the law related to contempt. It was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing for contempt and matters connected therewith. The Act lays down the procedures and penalties for dealing with contemptuous behaviour that interferes with the administration of justice or undermines the authority of the courts in India.

Types of contempt of court

1. Civil Contempt: Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other processes of a court. It occurs when a person or entity fails to comply with a court order, which can be either monetary, procedural, or related to any specific action or inaction required by the court. The purpose of civil contempt is to compel compliance with the court’s orders and ensure that court decisions are effectively enforced. Examples of civil contempt include: Failing to pay court-ordered fines or financial penalties, refusing to follow a court order to produce documents or evidence, disobeying a court’s injunction or restraining order, violating child custody or visitation orders, ignoring court orders related to property disputes or contracts.
2. Criminal Contempt: Criminal contempt involves actions that scandalize or lower the authority of the court or prejudice or interfere with the administration of justice. This type of contempt is considered an offense against the court and is aimed at maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary. Unlike civil contempt, criminal contempt is generally prosecuted by the court itself, and the penalties may include fines and/or imprisonment. Examples of criminal contempt include, using disrespectful or offensive language towards the judge or court officials during proceedings, disrupting court proceedings through unruly behaviour or creating disturbances, publishing false or defamatory statements about the court, judges, or judicial proceedings, Threatening or intimidating witnesses, or court personnel, attempting to influence the outcome of a case through improper means.

Essential ingredients of contempt of court

• Civil Contempt:

1. Existence of a Court Order: There must be a valid and subsisting court order, judgment, decree, direction, or writ, which the contemnor is alleged to have disobeyed or failed to comply with.
2. Wilful Disobedience: The contemnor’s failure to comply with the court order must be wilful, deliberate, and intentional. Mere inability to comply or accidental non-compliance may not be considered contempt.
3. Knowledge of the Order: The contemnor must have knowledge of the court order in question. If the person was not aware of the order, it may not amount to civil contempt.
4. Contemporaneity: The disobedience or failure to comply with the court order must be contemporaneous, meaning it should have occurred while the court order was in force.
5. Proof of Contempt: The party alleging civil contempt must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the contemnor wilfully violated the court order.

• Criminal Contempt

1. Act or Publication: The contemnor’s actions should include scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court or prejudicing or interfering with the administration of justice. This can include words spoken, written, or published, gestures, or actions both inside and outside the court.
2. Mens Rea (Mental Element): Criminal contempt requires a guilty mind, meaning that the contemnor must have the intention to scandalize the court or obstruct the administration of justice.
3. Presence of Contemptuous Element: The alleged contemptuous act or publication must have a tendency to undermine the dignity or authority of the court or interfere with the fair administration of justice.

Punishment for contempt

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 addresses the consequences of Contempt. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court are vested with the authority to punish individuals found guilty of Contempt. As per Section 12(1) of the Act, a person accused of Contempt can face a penalty of simple imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to two thousand rupees, or both such forms of punishment.

Landmark judgments on contempt of court

1. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker (1988): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that fair criticism of a judicial act does not amount to contempt. It established the principle that honest and bona fide criticism of a judgment, even if strong, cannot be punished as contempt, as long as it does not undermine the authority of the court.
2. Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (1991): The Supreme Court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the intention of the contemnor is essential. If the alleged contemnor acted without any deliberate intention to scandalize the court or obstruct the administration of justice, it may not be contemptuous.
3. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995): The Supreme Court held that no one, including lawyers, has the right to interfere with the administration of justice. Lawyers have a duty to uphold the dignity of the court, and any act to malign or scandalize the court would be treated as contempt.
4. Arundhati Roy vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2002): The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that the contempt jurisdiction should not be used to stifle fair criticism or dissent against the judiciary. It asserted that judges are not immune to criticism, and their actions are subject to public scrutiny.
5. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha (2004): The Supreme Court held that contempt proceedings should be initiated with caution and in exceptional cases. It emphasized that the court must be slow to punish for contempt and use this power judiciously.

Conclusion

Contempt cases are highly sensitive, and the courts ought to exercise their powers to punish contempt with caution. The burden of proof rests on the person or authority alleging contempt, and the contemnor has the right to defend themselves during the proceedings.