International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM),

ISSN: 2455-6211, Volume 11, Issue 5, May-2023, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com

Court of Record: The Idea of Contempt of Court

Dhanraj Garwa
BBALLB (HONS) Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies ( Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi)

-------------------------------------------------------------****************------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

What exactly is contempt? The definition of contempt in its simplest form is the state of being despised or
dishonored; disgrace. Contempt of court is defined as any action that leads to disdain or disregard for the rule of
law. Over the past few years, the law of contempt has increasingly changed. In order to address these problems,
judges have changed and adjusted the contempt jurisdiction. A historical investigation of how the contempt
jurisdiction was developed is not necessary, according to the majority of research on the subject. Instead, it is
assumed that we must adapt to the contempt jurisdiction as it already exists. However, there is much to be learned
from the development of the law of contempt throughout history.

I have attempted to examine and analyze the history of the idea of contempt of court in this research paper. This
essay will discuss every aspect related to this idea, including legal rulings and constitutional clauses. This article also
sheds light on a number of important rulings addressing the matter of judicial contempt. This research paper will
analyze the idea of court contempt in great detail while maintaining the utmost respect for the judiciary. The
protection of the administration of justice in both criminal and civil matters is the major concern behind this idea.

Keywords: Contempt of Court, Court of Record, Prudence, Justice

INTRODUCTION

In Wharton’s Law Lexicon1, the definition of court of record is provided as:

Courts are either of record where their acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony
and they have the power to fine and imprison; or not of record being courts of inferior dignity, and in a less proper sense the
King’s Court’s – and these are not entrusted by law with any power is fine or imprison the subject of the realm, unless by
the express provision of some Act of Parliament. These proceedings are not enrolled or recorded.

The legal system that exists now is the culmination of a protracted journey that began with the divine rule that was
announced and continued through the natural law and further to the present-day positive law. In addition to punishing those
who attempt to undermine the legitimacy or authority of the legal systems, contempt of court is a matter that pertains to the
idea that justice should be administered equitably. This legislation dates back to the middle Ages, when the monarch's regal
powers were handed to the court and everyone was held to his or her authority because it was believed that the monarch had
been chosen by God.2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Punishment for court contempt has a lengthy history dating back to the 13th century. By banning inappropriate interference
with the administration of justice, whether directed at judges, witnesses, or anybody else, it was intended to protect the
fairness process' integrity. Kings 3claimed to have established this contempt of court jurisdiction as a logical extension of
their settlement efforts. The law imposes discipline on an individual when making a decision, upholding the dignity of the
administration of justice.

Therefore, if someone disobeys or acts in contempt of the court's orders, they are guilty of a crime. At some instances, the
pecuniary penalty for contempt of court was also included.

1
Wharton’s Law Lexicon (14th Edn.) 275.
2
Origin of Contempt of Court (https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-of-court-2/#Origin_of_Contempt_of_Court)
3
Sir G.D. Baneiji, 'The Hindu Law of Maniage and Stridhana', Tagoie Law Lecliiies. p. 3

Page | 1845
 International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM),
ISSN: 2455-6211, Volume 11, Issue 5, May-2023, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com

INDIA’S PERSPECTIVE

In the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Pepsu high court 4, The first statutory
provision pertaining to contempt was found in Clause 4 of the Charter of 1774, which stated that the Supreme Court of
Bengal would have the same jurisdiction as the Court of King's Bench in England, along with the authority to punish for
contempt. Justice Vivian Bose had attempted to trace the history of Indian contempt law. The Privy Council consistently
held the same stance as the Common Law, which was that a superior court of record has the inherent authority to penalize
for contempt. Justice Bose pointed out:5

This recognizes an existing jurisdiction in all Letters Patent High Courts to punish for contempts of themselves, and the
only limitation placed on those powers is the amount of punishment which they could thereafter inflict. It is to be noted that
the Act draws no distinction between one Letters Patent High Court and another though it does distinguish between Letters
Patent High Courts and Chief Courts also, as the Act is intended to remove doubts about the High Court's powers it is
evident that it would have conferred those powers had there been any doubt about the High Court's power to commit for
contempt of themselves. The only doubt with which the Act deals is the doubt whether a High Court could punish for
contempts of a court subordinate to it. That doubt the Act removed. It also limited the amount of punishment which a High
Court could inflict.

Now this recognizes an existing power in all Letters Patent High Courts to punish and as the Letters Patent High Courts
other than on the Chartered High Courts could not have derived this power from the common law, it is evident that the
power must have been inherent in themselves because they were courts of record.

INTERNATIONALPRSPECTIVE

(a) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA –

The offence of scandalizing someone has been deemed too severe in this nation. The Court's authority is weakened with
each criticism we level at the judicial system. The public and the American concept of democracy place great weight on the
freedom to express opinions or critique the conduct of public institutions. The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the
matter of Bridges v. California6 was used by the UK consultation paper as justification for eliminating the charge of
scandalizing someone. The United States of America has ruled that this offence is unconstitutional.

(b) UNITED KINGDOM7 –

Around a hundred years later the above case, Lord Morris in the case McLeod v. St. Aubyn8 made a very wonderful
statement that for contempt by scandalizing has become outdated and in place of that the court should leave on the public
opinion whether the attacks or contempt that are derogatory or scandalous to the Judiciary or not.

STATUTE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT IS DEFINED UNDER AS:

According to Section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971:

2. Definitions. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “Contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court
or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

4
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu high court, (1954) SCR at 454.
5
Justice Bose traces the genesis of the principle by relying on the principles of British common law as enunciated in
Belchamber's Practice of the Civil Courts (1884) and the Hailsham Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England. See also, Abdul
Hasan Jauhar, In re, ILR 48 All 711 (also reported as Hadi Husain & Ors., v. Nasir Uddin Haider & Ors., AIR 1926 All
623.
6
Bridges v. California,314 U.S. 252 (1941)
7
Blog iPleaders (https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-of-court-2/)
8
McLeod v. St. Aubyn [1899] UKPC 51

Page | 1846
 International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM),
ISSN: 2455-6211, Volume 11, Issue 5, May-2023, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com

(c) “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) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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;

(d) “High Court” means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court of the Judicial
Commissioner in any Union territory.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COUIRT IN INDIAN COURT’S

Case of Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat9

The apex court held that its power to punish for contempt in Article 129 is not confined to its own contempt. It extends to
all courts and tribunals subordinate to it in the country. 10 The words “including the power to punish for contempt of itself”
are not the words restriction and do not exhaust or exclude its jurisdiction as a court of record to punish for the contempt of
all subordinate courts. But no subordinate courts including the High Court have the power to punish for the contempt of the
Supreme Court.11

Case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar12

The Apex court held "Any publication which was calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper
administration of law would amount to contempt of court. A scurrilous attack on a judge, in respect of a judgment or past
conduct has in our country the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the judiciary; and if
confidence in judiciary goes administration of justice definitely suffers."

Case of Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh13

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that there should be an actual interference with the course
of administration of justice. It is enough if the offending act or publication tends in any way to so interfere. If there are
insinuations made which are derogatory to the dignity of the court and are calculated to undermine the confidence of the
people in the integrity of the judges, the conduct would amount to contempt.

Case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr 14

In this case, the Judge held that procedural aspect for Contempt of Court may still be prescribed by the Parliament so that it
could be applicable in the Supreme Court and the High Court. This means that Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act,
1971 which prescribed a maximum fine of Rs. 5000 and imprisonment for a term of six months shall be applicable in this
case.

After reviewing a number of prior instances involving legitimate criticism and embarrassing the courts or judiciary,15the
court in Arundhati Roy, re16 held that expressions such as “court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice on an
absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated petition” or the court “notice was intended to silence criticism and muzzle
dissent” did not fall in the category of fair criticism by a law person has greater chance of falling within the category of fair
criticism than the one by a journalist or writer like Arundhati Roy.

9
AIR 1991 SC 2176
10
AIR 1999 SC 452
11
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2007
12
AIR 1988 SC 1208
13
(1955) 1 SCR 677
14
AIR 1998 SC 1895
15
For e.g., E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 SCC 325: AIR 1070 SC
2015; S. Mulgaokar, re, (1978) 3 SCC 339: AIR 1978 SC 727; D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India,
(4996) 5 SCC 216: AIR 1996 SC 2481; Subramanian Swamy v. Rama Krishna Hegile, (2000) 10
SCC 331.
16
AIR 2002 SC 1375

Page | 1847
 International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM),
ISSN: 2455-6211, Volume 11, Issue 5, May-2023, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com

PRUDENCE BEHIND CONTEMPT OF COURT

In particular, those regions of the world that grant their residents the freedom of speech and expression, where not even the
judicial system, which administers justice, should be kept out of that field, recognize criticism as an essential component of
modernistic societies. Fair criticism of judicial actions is not considered contempt of court, according to Section 5 of the
Act, and posting comments that are fair and on the merits of a matter that has already been heard and determined does not
constitute such behaviour.17

CULMINATION
Ex facie contempt of subordinate courts is now handled in India in an inadequate and deceptive manner. The overlap
between the contempt powers under the Indian Penal Code, the Contempt of Courts Act, and the contempt powers of the
Supreme Court and High Court under the Indian Constitution appears to be the cause of the complications in this regard.
Due to the inconsistent interpretations made by the Supreme Court and High Court regarding various provisions of the
Indian Penal Code dealing with interference with the administration of justice and the exclusion clause in the Contempt of
Courts Act, the situation has become more complicated. The subordinate court should also have the authority to deal with
contempt, in addition to the higher court. When viewed from the perspective of judges and higher judicial authorities,
contempt of court appears to be beneficial, but when viewed from the perspective of the general public, it has a negative
impact.

17
EVOLUTION OF LAW REGARDING CONTEMPT OF COURT By Priya Vaishnav
(https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2006567.pdf)

Page | 1848