Contempt of court in India

Last updated

In India, the offence of contempt of court is committed when a person either disobeys a court order (civil contempt), or when a person says or does anything that scandalizes, prejudices, or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice (criminal contempt). Contempt of court can be punished with imprisonment or a fine, or both. [1]

Contents

History and legislation

The offence of contempt of courts was established in common law, and can also be traced to colonial legislation, with the earliest recorded penalties contained in the Regulating Act of 1773, which stated that the newly formed Mayor's Court of Calcutta would have the same powers as a court of the English King's Bench to punish persons for contempt. [2] Courts established in India under colonial rule followed the common law principle that all 'courts of record' had the inherent power to punish for contempt. High Courts established in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras as courts of record subsequently exercised the power of contempt to penalise persons for interfering with the administration of justice. [3]

The Contempt of Courts Act 1926 was enacted to resolve a conflict of opinions between High Courts in India on whether they had the power to penalise offences of contempt committed against other, subordinate courts that fell under their jurisdiction. The 1926 Act specifically affirmed this power, and allowed the High Courts to penalise contempt against subordinate courts as well as against their own judgments and proceedings. In 1952, the Contempt of Courts Act was replaced by a new legislation of the same name, which expanded the power to punish for contempt from High Courts to other courts as well. [4]

The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, specifically established the Supreme Court of India as well as High Courts in the states of India as courts of record with the power to punish for acts of contempt. [5] Contempt of court is also a ground on which the right to freedom of speech in India can be restricted. [6] [7]

In 1961, a committee headed by H.N. Sanyal, an Additional Solicitor General for the Government of India, was appointed to examine the application of contempt laws in India. The Sanyal Committee recommended that contempt proceedings should be initiated not by the courts themselves, but on the recommendation of a law officer of the government. [8] [9] These recommendations were incorporated in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, enacted by the Parliament of India, which is the current legislation governing contempt of courts in India. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines civil and criminal contempt, and lays down the powers and procedures by which courts can penalise contempt, as well as the penalties that can be given for the offence of contempt. [10] The Act was amended in 2006, to limit the power of courts to punish for contempt, only when such contempt "interfered with the due course of justice," [11] and to allow truth as a defense to contempt. [7]

Commission of contempt of court

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 categorises the offence of contempt into civil and criminal contempt. [12] The Act specifies that High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have the power to try and punish the offence of contempt, and High Courts have the power to punish acts of contempt against courts subordinate to them; however, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that any court of record has the inherent power to punish for contempt. In addition to these courts, certain administrative tribunals also have been given the power to punish for contempt, in their governing statutes. [13]

Civil Contempt

Civil contempt, defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, is "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court". [14] [15]

Criminal Contempt

Criminal contempt, defined in Section 2(c), is committed when anything is published, or done, which "scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court", or "prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding," or "interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." [16] The offence of criminal contempt has been held to cover false statements made to or about the judiciary, coercion and attempts to pervert judicial proceedings by attacking witnesses, parties, or judges, recording court proceedings without permission from the court, obstructing officers of the court from performing their functions, as well as verbal abuse and accusations of incompetence or bias against judges. [17]

Procedure

The procedure for trying cases of contempt of court is provided in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. [18] Proceedings can be initiated by courts suo motu, i.e. by themselves, and require a notice in writing to be sent to person alleged to have committed contempt to appear before the court, when the contemptuous act or words occur in the presence of the court. Courts are required to conduct these hearings as soon as possible, and preferably on the same day when it concerns acts of contempt committed in their presence. Persons accused of contempt have the right to be heard in their defence and courts can hear evidence regarding the case as well. Detention in custody is permissible during a trial for contempt. [19]

When contemptuous acts or words are alleged to have occurred outside a courtroom, proceedings for contempt in the High Courts or Supreme Courts can only be carried out if with the permission of the relevant law officer. In the case of High Courts, the consent of the State's Advocate General is required, and in the case of the Supreme Court, the consent of either the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor General of India is required. [20] Proceedings for contempt in the Supreme Court are also subject an additional set of regulations, known as the 'Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court'. [21]

Defenses

The Contempt of Courts Act allows three defenses to charges of contempt. It allows an exemption for those who innocently publish or commit acts that would otherwise amount to contempt, if they reasonably believed that there were no ongoing judicial proceedings regarding these acts, or if they reasonably believe that the content of their words or actions did not contain anything contemptuous. The Act also specifically exempts fair and accurate reporting on judicial proceedings, and fair criticism of the judiciary. [22] In 2006, the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was amended to allow truth as a defense to contempt, provided that the person claiming this defence was acting in public interest. [7]

Punishment and Sentencing

Both civil and criminal contempt share the same punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Act allows for a maximum term of imprisonment for six months, and this can be supplemented with a fine of up to ₹2000. [23] The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 also specifically allows courts to forgo the punishment if an apology is made to the court, and may use their discretion to determine whether the apology has been sufficient. [24]

Criticism

In 1969, a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India, which found the law to be substantively valid. In 2020, lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan, along with journalist and politician Arun Shourie, and publisher N. Ram, filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Courts Act again [11] [25]

Courts' powers to punish for criminal contempt have been repeatedly criticized by former judges and lawyers as having a chilling effect on freedom of speech, being too broad and vague in its definition and lending itself to misuse to shield the judiciary from criticism. [26] Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde has argued that the offence of "scandalizing the court" is "incapable of precise definition," and that it derives from English law, where it has since been abolished. [27]

In 2011, retired Supreme Court judge and former Press Council of India Chairman, Markandeya Katju, called for amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 in order to allow the media to report better on law and judiciary-related matters. [28]

In March 2018, the Law Commission of India was tasked by the Government of India with re-examining Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which defines the offence of contempt. The Commission was asked to examine a proposal that suggested that contempt of court should be limited to cases of civil contempt, i.e. disobedience of court orders, and should not include the offence of 'scandalising the court', i.e. criminal contempt. The Commission recommended the retention of the offence of 'criminal contempt' in India, noting that courts in India continue to use it widely, unlike other countries in which offences such as 'scandalising the court' have fallen into disuse. The Commission also noted that the power of courts to penalise contempt was inherent, and would continue to exist even if the Act was amended or deleted altogether. [29] [30]

Notable Cases

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is awarded only in the 'rarest of cases'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Penal Code</span> Penal code of Republic of India

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code in the Republic of India, inherited from British India after its independence. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted on the recommendations of the first Law Commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It came into force in the subcontinent during the British rule in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems until the 1940s. The code has since been amended several times and is now supplemented by other criminal provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gopal Ballav Pattanaik</span> 32nd Chief Justice of India

Gopal Ballav Pattanaik is an Indian lawyer and later a jurist who served over a period of 19 years in the bench of the Odisha High Court as a permanent judge, as chief justice of the Patna High Court, Judge of the Supreme Court of India and as the 32nd Chief Justice of India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gujarat High Court</span> High Court for the State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court is the High Court of the state of Gujarat. It was established on 1 May 1960 under the Bombay Re-organisation Act, 1960 after the state of Gujarat split from Bombay State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of India</span> National court system

The judiciary of India is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. India uses a common law system, first introduced by the British East India Company and with influence from other colonial powers and Indian princely states, as well as practices from ancient and medieval times. The Constitution of India provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prashant Bhushan</span> Indian activist, lawyer and politician

Prashant Bhushan is an Indian public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court of India. He was a member of the faction of the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement known as Team Anna which supported Anna Hazare's campaign for the implementation of the Jan Lokpal Bill. After a split in IAC, he helped Team Anna form the Aam Aadmi Party. In 2015, he made several allegations against the party's leadership, its functioning and its deviation from the core ideology, values and commitments. He is one of the founders of Swaraj Abhiyan and Sambhaavnaa, an Institute of Public Policy and Politics.

The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offence of scandalizing the court in Singapore</span> Crime in Singapore

In Singapore, the offence of scandalizing the court is committed when a person performs any act or publishes any writing that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority. An act or statement that alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function falls within the offence. The High Court and the Court of Appeal are empowered by section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to punish for contempt of court. This provision is statutory recognition of the superior courts' inherent jurisdiction to uphold the proper administration of justice. The Subordinate Courts are also empowered by statute to punish acts of contempt. Although Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore protects every citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression, the High Court has held that the offence of scandalizing the court falls within the category of exceptions from the right to free speech expressly stipulated in Article 14(2)(a). Some commentators have expressed the view that the courts have placed excessive value on protecting the independence of the judiciary, and have given insufficient weight to free speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Code of criminal law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

<i>Shadrake v Attorney-General</i>

Shadrake Alan v. Attorney-General is a 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that clarified the law relating to the offence of scandalising the court. Alan Shadrake, the author of the book Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock (2010), was charged with contempt of court by way of scandalising the court. The Prosecution alleged that certain passages in his book asserted that the Singapore judiciary lacks independence, succumbs to political and economic pressure, and takes a person's position in society into account when sentencing; and that it is the method by which Singapore's ruling party, the People's Action Party, stifles political dissent in Singapore.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crime and Courts Act 2013</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is an Act of Parliament of the Parliament of the United Kingdom introduced to the House of Lords in May 2012. Its main purpose is to create the United Kingdom National Crime Agency which replaced the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Part 2 of the Act relaxes the rules on filming court proceedings under controlled circumstances, and amends the rules on 'self-defence'.

Justice Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay was a Judge at the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court. He is the brother of the chess player Praveen Thipsay. Among the cases he judged in his career were the Best Bakery case and the Sohrabuddin encounter case. His media statements around these cases were controversial, too.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">N. V. Ramana</span> 48th Chief Justice of India

Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana is a former Indian judge and journalist who served as the 48th Chief Justice of India.

Justice Gita Mittal was an Indian judge, now retired. She is the former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and the first woman judge to serve in that capacity. She has also served as the Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court while she was serving as a Judge of the Delhi High Court.

Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani is a former Indian judge and prosecutor, who last served as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Previously, as a judge of the Bombay High Court, she notably upheld the conviction of several persons for the rape of a pregnant Muslim woman during the 2002 Gujarat riots, chastising investigative authorities for their inaction in the matter, and also refused parole for those convicted in the 1993 Bombay bombings. She retired in 2019, after refusing to accept a controversial transfer from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court.

Anuja Prabhudessai is a judge of the Bombay High Court, in Maharashtra, India. She is the first woman from Goa to be a High Court judge in India.

Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala is an Indian lawyer. She was previously an additional judge of the Bombay High Court, but resigned in 2022, after the Supreme Court of India took the unusual step of refusing to confirm her appointment to the High Court as permanent, after she delivered several controversial judgments concerning cases of sexual assaults against women and children.

Roshan Dalvi is a former judge of the Bombay High Court, in Maharashtra, India. She adjudicated a number of widely reported and significant cases during her career as a judge, including the dispute between the children of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray regarding their inheritance, and the challenge to a Maharashtra law forbidding dancers in bar from carrying on their profession.

References

  1. ↑ Venugopal et al. 2011, p. 4.
  2. ↑ Nair 2004, p. 28.
  3. ↑ Law Commission of India 2018, p. 1-2.
  4. ↑ Law Commission of India 2018, p. 4.
  5. ↑ Constitution of India 1950, articles 129, 215
  6. ↑ Constitution of India (1950), art 19(2)
  7. 1 2 3 Venkataramanan, K. (2020-08-02). "The Hindu Explains | What is contempt of court?". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  8. ↑ Datar, Arvind. "A seriously flawed judgment". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  9. ↑ Law Commission of India 2018, p. 5.
  10. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
  11. 1 2 3 "Contempt Act challenged by Prashant Bhushan: Plea reopens old debate, courts have leaned in favour of law to punish". The Indian Express. 2020-08-02. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  12. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 2(a).
  13. ↑ Venugopal & Subramaniam 2011, p. 8-12.
  14. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 2(b).
  15. ↑ Venugopal & Subramaniam 2011, p. 24.
  16. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 2(c).
  17. ↑ Venugopal & Subramaniam 2011, p. 52-60.
  18. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 14.
  19. ↑ Venugopal & Subramaniam 2011, p. 91-93.
  20. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 15.
  21. ↑ "SG Tushar Mehta refuses permission to prosecute Swara Bhasker for criminal contempt". Hindustan Times. 2020-08-26. Retrieved 2020-08-30.
  22. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Sections 3,4 and 5.
  23. ↑ Contempt of Courts Act 1971, p. Section 12.
  24. ↑ Venugopal & Subramaniam 2011, p. 83-.
  25. ↑ "Arun Shourie interview: 'Judgments judges deliver, their conduct, determine public esteem, not a tweet'". The Indian Express. 2020-08-22. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  26. ↑ "Contempt of court provision vague: Former Supreme Court, High Court judges". Hindustan Times. 2020-08-23. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  27. ↑ HEGDE, SANJAY. "Vague definition of criminal contempt". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  28. ↑ "Contempt of Court Act needs to be amended for media: Katju". The Indian Express. 2012-04-26. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  29. ↑ Law Commission of India 2018, p. 53-54.
  30. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (2018-04-20). "Reviewing the Contempt of Courts Act". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  31. ↑ "Contempt, the Press and the Judiciary: A Tale from Another Time". The Wire. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  32. ↑ "Contempt of Court Is Not the Weapon the SC Should Wield To Preserve Its Honour". The Wire. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  33. ↑ Mandhani, Apoorva (2014-12-16). "Peculiar case of contempt against Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: Disposed of by Kerala High Court in 1983 acknowledging the bias [Read the Judgment]". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  34. ↑ "SC sets aside Thackeray's conviction in contempt case". Outlook India. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  35. ↑ "Contempt of court case: Apex court upholds conviction of Kerala CPM leader Jayarajan". The Indian Express. 2015-01-31. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  36. ↑ V.VENKATESAN. "What constitutes 'scandalising the court'". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  37. ↑ Delhi, V. VENKATESAN in New. "Contempt and punishment". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  38. ↑ Yates, Emma (2002-03-06). "Booker-winner Arundhati Roy jailed". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  39. ↑ "SC refuses to stay contempt notice of HC against Arundhati Roy". The Indian Express. 2016-01-23. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  40. ↑ TNN, TNN / (7 February 2003). "Mysore sex scandal: Media faces contempt case". The Times of India. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  41. ↑ "Contempt case against the media". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  42. ↑ "HC convicts man for contempt of court". The Indian Express. 2011-04-28. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  43. ↑ "Rajpal Yadav, wife jailed for contempt of court in Rs 5 crore recovery suit - Indian Express". archive.indianexpress.com. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  44. ↑ "Madras High Court judge warns CJ of contempt of court". The Indian Express. 2015-05-11. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  45. ↑ "Calcutta HC Judge rejects apex court's warrant in contempt case". The Indian Express. 2017-03-18. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  46. ↑ "Completing six months incarceration, Justice Karnan to publish his controversial orders against SC judges as a book". The Indian Express. 2017-11-17. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  47. ↑ "Supreme Court stays Bombay HC order convicting Ketan Tirodkar for defamatory comments on FB". DNA India. 27 November 2018. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
  48. ↑ Thomas, Shibu (30 October 2018). "Maharashtra can allot only 1 flat per person: Bombay high court". The Times of India. Retrieved 25 April 2023.
  49. ↑ Rautray, Samanwaya. "SC holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt, says tweets based on distorted facts". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-08-29.
  50. ↑ "SC holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt over tweets against CJI, judiciary". The Indian Express. 2020-08-14. Retrieved 2020-08-29.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.