Punishment and Remedies against order of contempt

What is contempt of court?

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offence of
being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of
behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.It manifests
itself in wilful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often
behaviour that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court.
There are broadly two categories of contempt: (i) being rude or disrespectful to legal
authorities in the courtroom, or (ii) wilfully failing to obey a court order.
A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a
court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor
behaviour, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is
deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as
a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems
usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil
law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished

In India contempt of court is of two types:

In India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, divides contempt into civil contempt and
criminal contempt.

To constitute 'civil contempt' the following things are required to be proved:

A) There is disobedience of the order, decree etc. of the

1) Civil contempt-
According to section 2 (b) of The Contempt of court Act, 1971, civil contempt means
"willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of
a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court.” Thus civil contempt
consists of disobeying the orders and process of the court .Civil contempt involves only the
willful disobedience of the court’s order or breach of undertaking given to the court. The
purpose of the proceeding for the civil contempt is not only to punish the container but also to
exercise enforcement and obedience to the order of the court.

1
Civil contempt serves two purposes -

1) Vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and

2) Coercion to compel the container to do what the court requires of him.
court or breach of undertaking given to the court; and

B) The disobedience of Breach Is Wilful.

For civil contempt it is necessary that order which has been disobeyed must have been
passed by the court having jurisdiction to pass such order. If the order has been passed
without jurisdiction, it is not binding on the party against which it has been Passed by the and
therefore disobedience of such order will not amount to contempt of Court. The burden to
prove that the court has no jurisdiction to pass the order lies on the person who alleges it.
When the court orders a person to do something or not to do something, it is incumbent on
that party to comply with that order forthwith. The person disobeying the order of the court
will alone be responsible for the consequence and he cannot be heard to say that he referred
the matter to his higher officer. The breach of undertaking given to the court is also taken as
contempt, if it is wilful. But the breach of undertaking recorded are forming part of
compromise decree, would not amount to contempt of court. For civil contempt, the
disobedience of the order, decree, etc .of the court or breach of undertaking given to The
Court Must Be wilful. Wilful means the action or state for which compulsion of ignorance or
accident cannot be pleaded as excuse, intentional, deliberate, due to perversity or self-will.

2) Criminal contempt
According to Section 2(c) of The Contempt of courts Act, 1971, "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) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lower or tends to lower, the authority of any Court; or
II) Prejudice or interfere or tents to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding;
or
III) Interface or tends to interfere with or obstructs, tends to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.

2
Criminal contempt is a conduct directed against dignity of Court. Criminal contempt is
directed against the power and dignity of the court. The definition of criminal contempt is
wide enough to include any act of a person which would tend to interfere with the
administration of justice or with which would lower to the authority of the court. To
constitute the criminal contempt it is not necessary that the publication or other acts should
have actually resulted in scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court but it is enough
that the act is likely to result in scandalizing. Thus the offense of contempt is complete by
mere attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of Justice.
'Scandalize' connotes to speak falsely, or maliciously, to bring into approach, dishonour,
disgrace, to offend the feelings, conscious or property of an action. ‘scandalize’ also means to
offend a moral feeling, and to make a public scandal of, to utter false or malicious reports of a
person's conduct, slander, or to bring same or discredit or to disgrace. We can say that the
disgraceful word scandalize means the defamatory, derogatory, false malicious disgraceful
statements regarding the persons as Judges. It is for the court to decide whether or not the
publication or act is likely to scandalize or lower the authority of the court or interfere with
due course of any judicial proceeding for administration of justice. The publication may be
by words written or spoken by sign's or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter.
But in the Act it is not clear as to whether the publication should be taken to mean
Publication to the general public or any kind of Publication. Scandalizing the court means
any hostile criticism of the judge; any
An Advocate is an officer of the court and hence undue interference with the Advocate in the
discharge of his professional functions amount to contempt of court.
Any conduct by which course or Justice is prevented either by a party or a stranger is a
contempt of court. Any person who interferes or prevents other person from coming to the
stream of justice is he liable for contempt of Court. The Court must be very careful in
analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case for determining whether or not the action
taken by a person amounts to interfere with the course of Justice. Witnesses are also integral
part of the judicial process and they must have freedom to perform their duties and so
interference with performance of their duties is taken as contempt of court.
Examples of some contempt of court cases:
1) Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union Of India & on 17 April, 1998
2) High Court of Karnataka vs. Y.K. Subbana and Ors. on 23 November, 1989
3) Raj Kishore Yadavavs. Principal, KendriyaVidyalaya on 6 November, 1996

3
Punishment for contempt of court (sec12)
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court
may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation – An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall
impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub section for any contempt either in respect
of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a
civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a
sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple
imprisonment, direct that the he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding
six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to
a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in
charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company,
as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may
be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person.
Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to such
punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (4) where the contempt of court
referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is provided that the contempt has
been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of, any director, manger, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,
manager , secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the be contempt and
the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison
of such director, manager, secretary or other officer

4
COMMENTS
(i) Court dealing with application for contempt of court cannot traverse beyond the order. It
cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any
direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction with an application for initiation of
contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible; Prithavi Nath
Ram v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 4277A.
(ii) The various different modes of execution of orders and decrees, as recognised by law,
cannot be resorted to by the Court in a contempt proceeding; Bonbehari Roy v. Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority, AIR 2004 Cal 254B.
(iii) The common English phrase “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the
matter of proof of the allegations said to constitute the act of contempt. As regards the
standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi judicial, and as such,
the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be
established beyond reasonable doubt; Mrityunjoy Das v. SayedHasiburRahaman, AIR 2001
SC 1293.
(iv) The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of court, though quite wide, is
yet limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is
also guilty of “professional misconduct” in a summary manner; Supreme Court Bar
Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895.
(v) Breach of an injunction, or breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil
proceeding amounts to contempt; Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, AIR 1990 SC
564.
(vi) Committing the contemnor to prison is always discretionary with the court; Shakuntala
Sahadevram Tiwari v. Hemchand M. Singhania, (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom).

5
Punishment for criminal contempt of court
Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction
(Sec.11) Punishment for contempt of court (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this
Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees,
or with both. Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may
be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.-An apology
shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused
makes it bona fide. [Sec.12]
The Supreme Court has discussed in Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Illavazhuthi &Anr the law
relating to Criminal Contempt of Court under S. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced herein below;
“We have already pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms
of Section2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered. In a series of decisions, this
Court has held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also the jurisdiction
to punish for contempt are discretionary with the court. Contempt generally and criminal
contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. No one can
compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. The person filing an
application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the
proceedings. He is just an informer or realtors. His duty ends with the facts being brought to
the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not.”
In order to understand the above issue, it is relevant to refer Section 2(c) of the Act which
defines criminal contempt as:
“criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,
or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, of 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."

6
Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed
with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the
interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of "deliberate
falsehood" on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable
foundation for the charge.
There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere
suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement, more so, the court has to
determine as on facts whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into offence
which appears to have been committed.
The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the
same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules
framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged
contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment
in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities; equally, the court cannot punish the alleged
contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. As observed above,
the contempt proceeding being quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the
procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such proceedings.

In Bal Thackeray vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 396, this Court held that
in absence of the consent of the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt filed by a
party under Section 15 of the Act, taking suo moto action for contempt without a prayer, was
not maintainable.
___________________________________________________________________________
Punishment for civil contempt of court
Contempt of court refers to actions which defy a court's authority, cast disrespect on a court,
or impede the ability of the court to perform its function. Contempt takes two forms: criminal
contempt and civil contempt. Actions that one might normally associate with the phrase
"contempt of court," such as a party causing a serious disruption in the courtroom, yelling at
the judge, or refusing to testify before a grand jury, would often constitute criminal contempt
of court.. For example, failure to pay court ordered child support can lead to punishment for
civil contempt. Typically, the aggrieved party, such as a parent who has not received court
ordered child support payments, may file an action for civil contempt.

7
Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt
sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to
satisfy the court's order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt
sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the
underlying case is resolved. Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order
incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with
criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same
constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.

Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an
opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does
not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence
(jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either
the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

Direct and Indirect Contempt:

Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of
the court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the
presence of the court

Civil contempt often occurs indirectly - for example, when a party is ordered to turn over
financial records within thirty days but refuses to do so. Indirect contempt is sometimes
called constructive or consequential contempt.

Conclusion

Civil contempt of court refers to behaviour which disobeys the authority of a court in a civil
proceeding. Civil contempt is distinct from criminal contempt of court. Most often, civil
contempt of court involves failure to satisfy a court order. Generally, sanction for civil
contempt end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or the underlying
case resolves. Civil contempt can result in punishment including jail time and/or a fine

8
Remedies against order of contempt of court:
Clause (b) of Section 13 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 that was introduced recently by
2006 amendment, allows the accused to raise the defences of justification by truth of such
contempt, if the court is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the
said defence is bona fide.
However, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is
satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends
substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—No court shall initiate any proceedings of
contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from
the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. —No court shall initiate
any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."

Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

(1)Subject to provision of any law for the time being in force, a judge, magistrate or any other
person act in judicially shall be liable for the contempt of his own court or any other court in
the same manner as any other. Individual is liable and the provisions of this Act so far as may
be, apply accordingly
(2)Notwithstanding in this section shall apply to any observation or remarks made by the
judge, magistrate, or any other person act in judicially, regarding a subordinate court in
appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate, or other person against the order or
judgement of the subordinate court.