CONTEMPT OF COURT

SUCHITRA BAI
PATENT DEPARTMENT
ALTACIT GLOBAL
 DEFINITION OF

CONTEMPT
Contempt of court may be said to be
constituted into disrespect or disregard, or
to interfere with or prejudice parties
litigation or their witness during the
litigation.
Lord Hadwick in 1742 made a three-fold
classification of contempt:
a. Scandalizing the court.
b. Abusing the parties who are concerned
in the cases, in the presence of the court.
c. Prejudicing the public against persons
before the case is heard.
 HISTORY OF CONTEMPT
OF COURT-INDIA
Contempt of courts of record was introduced into India by the
British following the establishment of the Courts of Record in
the 19th century. This was put on a firm basis in India by the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was felt on the account of the
differences of opinion between the Madras and Bombay High
Court on the one hand and Calcutta High Court on the other
regarding the protection of subordinate courts. The act did
not contain any provision with regard to contempt of court
subordinate to courts other than high courts, that is, the
courts subordinate to Chief courts and judicial
commissioners. The Act also did not deal with the extra
territorial jurisdiction of High courts in matters of contempt.
The contempt of court Act, 1926 was not found adequate
and as such the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 was enacted.
From the statement of objects and reasons which led to the
enactments of the contempt of courts Act, 1952 it is obvious
that this law was made as there was no specific provision of
law which enabled a High court to exercise this power in
respect of contempt committed beyond its territorial
jurisdiction.
 CONTEMPT OF COURT UNDER
THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM
Is a act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial
branch of the government, or an interference with its
orderly process. It is an offence against a court of justice or
a person to whom the judicial functions of the sovereignty
have been delegated. The American jurisprudence defines
contempt of court as follows:
Despising the authority of the judge or dignity of the court.
Any conduct which tends to bring the authority and
administration of law into disrespect or disregard.
Any conduct which interferes or prejudices the parties to a
litigation or their witnesses during litigation.
Any conduct which otherwise tends to impede, embarrass
or obstruct a court or a judge in the discharge of its or his
duties.
A statute may define contempt but it can never be
exhaustive.
 POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT
Supreme court is declared a Court of Record under
Article 129. As a court of record it has all the powers of
such a court including the power to punish for its
contempt. Under Article 129 and 142 of the
constitution of the supreme court has been vested
with power to punish for contempt of court including
the power to punish for contempt of itself. In case of
contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule
2, Part I of the rules to regulate proceedings for
contempt of the supreme court 1975.
The court may take action (a) suo moto, or (b) on a
petition made by attorney general or solicitor general
or (c) on a petition made by any person and in the
case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing
of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
 FIRST CASE OF CONTEMPT
IN INDIA
In this case in 1954 the members of the Executive committee of the
District Bar Association at Muzaffarnagar within the state of U.P made
certain allegations against a judicial office Mr. Kanhaya Lal Mehra and
a Revenue Officer Mr. Latta Prasad. A resolution was passed in the
meeting of the Bar Associations that complaints should be filed to the
superior authorities against the misconduct of these judges.
The judicial officer does not record evidence in cases tried before him
properly, that in all the criminal matters that are transferred to the
court, where the accused are already in bail, does not give them time
to furnish fresh sureties with the result he is sent to jail. He is not
accommodating to lawyer as a whole.
The revenue officer follows the highly illegal procedure of leaving 2
cases at a time, wherein records the evidence of one case and ask the
court clerk to do so with the other. Also, he is highly temperamental
and constantly threatens the lawyers with contempt of court.
It is now our considered opinion that the two officers are thoroughly
incompetent in law, not inspire confidence in their judicial work. They
state wrong facts when passing judgments and are overbearing and
discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike.
The High court found the lawyers to be prima facie in contempt of
court and fined them Rs. 300/-.
 TYPES OF CONTEMPT OF
COURT
Contempt can be criminal or civil.
Criminal contempt involves an intentional
interference with the administration of
justice, while civil contempt is disobedience
to orders or judgments of the court with only
knowledge of the order or judgment, not
intent to interfere, being needed.
Civil contempt requires only a preponderance
of the evidence while criminal contempt
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Another significant distinction arises from
whether the contempt occurs in the face of
the court or outside it; contempt beyond the
courtroom much harder to prove.
 CIVIL CONTEMPT
Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, the essential ingredient is willful
disobedience and not any and every
disobedience due to various reasons such as
delay due to unavoidable circumstances or
inadvertence. It has to be proved that the
disobedience was wilful. A Civil contempt
involves disobedience to a courts order
affecting the rights of other parties to that order
basically denying the rightful fruits of the suit to
the other party.
 MD. IKRAM HUSSAIN V.
STATE of U.P
The Court asked the appellant to
produce his daughter in a matter
of Habeas Corpus. He made false
excuses and did not produce her.
He was found guilty of contempt.
UNION OF INDIA V. OSWAL
WOLLEN MILLS
The court held that when as a result of an
order of the High court in a writ petition, an
application for license was to be disposed of by
the statutory authority no contempt can be said
to be committed merely because there is a
failure to dispose of the petition. Any order of
the court should give sufficient time for
compliance before contempt proceedings can be
initiated.
 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, it is seen that
scandalizing or prejudicing a Judge
or interfering with the administration
of justice is contempt. Even tending
to scandalize or tending to prejudice
or tending to interfere or obstruct is
enough to invoke action in criminal
contempt.
STATE OF A.P V. PRAKASH
RAO
A threat held out to a judge
with a view to obtain
favourable order would
amount to criminal contempt
as interference with the
administration of justice. The
threat need not be a threat to
the judge himself personally.
THANK YOU