PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

(H3LC201)

ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED TO
THE TAMILNADU DR. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY (TNDALU)
(SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW [SOEL], CHENNAI)
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPLETION OF INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

TOPIC

AN ANALYSIS ON CONTEMPT OF COURT

SUBMITTED BY,

N AME: SWETHA S
REGISTER NUMBER: H322129
COURSE: LLB (Hons.)
SECTION: “C” SECTION
YEAR: FIRST YEAR
SEMESTER: SECOND SEMESTER
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26/05/2023

STUDENT SIGNATURE (WITH DATE) FACULTY SIGNATURE

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No. TITLE Page No.

1 Introduction 1

2 Law Point 2

3 Contempt of court 3

4 Importance of contempt of court 4

5 Contempt Of Court Distinguished From Libel 4

6 Development Of The Law Of Contempt Of Court In India 6

7 Categories of Contempt of Courts 9

8 Civil Contempt 12

9 Criminal Contempt 13

10 Conclusions 18

11 References 19
 1
INTRODUCTION

Contempt of court is a general term used to describe behavior related to specific legal
procedures that threatens to undermine the legal system or discourages people from using it to
resolve their conflicts1.
The judiciary often exercises this extraordinary jurisdiction, in which the roles of judge and
prosecutor are united, with caution and applies the jurisdiction to uphold the supremacy of law.
Although judges as people and courts as institutions do not need greater protection than the average
person or institution, they do need special privileges when the fundamental supremacy of the law is
in jeopardy.
The free and impartial administration of justice depends on no authority or entity interfering
with that important process. The judiciary steps in as the defender of the rule of law through its
contempt power when there is interference in the administration of justice by a person, the press, or
any other state entity. The primary goal of the contempt jurisdiction is to give punishment for any
speech or behavior that could jeopardies or impede a fair trial.
This essay examines the legal framework governing contempt as well as the arguments
against the idea of unlawful contempt. The area of study also includes an advocate's moral conduct
before the court. Whether taking into account a subjective definition of criminal contempt
constitutes a violation of professional ethics is up for discussion. The article goes into further into
on the Supreme Court's ruling on advertising. The alleged tweets of Prashant Bhushan that were
thought to have damaged the reputation of the court, as well as the perspectives of legal experts on
the situation2.
The impartial administration of justice and respect for the judiciary depend not only on
refraining from interfering with the legal system but also on following the court's directives to the
letter. The impulse to disobey will be encouraged if court orders may be violated without
consequence. Special provisions have been developed in the form of contempt jurisdiction to
counteract such tendencies3.
The current study intends to determine how the judiciary responds and behaves when there
is an interference with the administration of justice or any action that jeopardies the honor of the
judges. It also aims at ascertaining the approach of the judiciary in case of disobedience of its orders

1 Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times News Papers Ltd (1973) 3 AIL ER. 54.71
2 Aksshay Sharma, Contempt of court and professional ethics, December 16, 2020.
3 K. Balasankaran Nair, Law of contempt of court in India, Atlantic publishers and distributors, 2004.
 2
either by individuals or by administrative authorities including public corporations and also by the
subordinate judiciary1.
Despite the absence of a specific Contempt of Courts Act prior to 1926, Indian courts have
been defining contempt in accordance with common law. The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act
amended the common law notion, which is being used today. After 1971, the judicial system began
to take a more lenient stance towards criminal contempt. This is a substantial shift in judicial
philosophy, in line with a democracy's emphasis on individual rights. But the judges haven't been as
lenient in cases of civil contempt. The Indian judiciary has generally responded to constructive
criticism with great tolerance. However, this does not imply that the judges are indifferent to
criticism at all.
The study has used various sources. Important among them are the verdicts and observations
of courts in India and England as found in law reports, articles in law journals, law reviews,
standard books on law, statutes, committee reports and Constituent Assembly Debates.

Law Point
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed in order to address the idea of contempt of
court. The Supreme Court and the High Court are each given the authority to punish individuals for
their respective contempt under Articles 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. The
authority of the High Court to punish contempt’s of its subordinate courts is outlined in Section
10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. Article 19(1) (a) does not apply to the ability to punish
for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 2152.
Essentials
Usually the following elements are required for establishing a contempt:
● A valid court order must be issued.
● The respondent must be aware of the order.
● The respondent must be able to comply with the order.
● The respondent must willfully disobey the order in order to establish contempt.
Types
According to Lord Hardwick, contempt can be categorized in one of three ways:
1 Creating controversy inside the court.
2 Abusing parties involved in the case in front of the court.
3 Disparaging the general population before the issue is addressed.

1 K. Balasankaran Nair, Law of contempt of court in India, Atlantic publishers and distributors, 2004.
2 Rituj Chopra, The Concept of the Contempt of Court, 2022
 3

Contempt of court
No satisfactory definition of the term contempt of court can be had.1 because the offence is
manifesting itself in a variety of ways. But the classical and celebrated explanation as given by Lord
Hardwicke L.C. has obtained general acceptance.
There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is scandalising the court
itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this court in abusing parties who are concerned in
causes here. There may also be a contempt of this court in prejudicing mankind against persons
before the cause is heard2.
Lord Morris in Mc Leod V. St. Abyn.18 The Contempt of Court Act, 1981 used the term
strict liability rule," instead of using the term contempt of court. American Jurisprudence gave a
better explanation for contempt of court. It states that “Generally speaking he whose conduct which
tends to bring the authority and the administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, interferes
with or prejudices parties or their witnesses during a litigation or otherwise tends to impede,
embarrass or obstruct the court in discharge of its duties is guilty of contempt”.
According to Article 129, the supreme court is a "Court of Record" and has all the authority
of a court of record, including the authority to punish for self-disrespect. Additionally, Article
142(2) gives the Supreme Court the authority to look into and punish anyone who disobeys the
court, including the Supreme Court itself. In a similar vein, Article 215 designates High Courts as
"Courts of Record" and states that they shall possess all the authority of such courts, including the
authority to punish themselves for contempt. The Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 both grant the ability to punish for contempt of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The
1971 Contempt of Courts Act merely outlines the two categories of contempt3.

1 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 48 (1974). The same view was expressed by Shawcross Committee
also "Not the least of the difficulties in this field (definition) is that contempt, being a growth of the common law,
has no authoritative definition or limitation...it can be defined in the most general terms" Shawcross Committee
Report, 4 (1959). See also Niyogi J. in Telhara Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd. v. Kashinath ILR 1940 Nag. 69. "It is
indeed difficult and almost impossible to frame a comprehensive and complete definition of contempt of court. The
law of contempt covers the whole field of litigation itself. The real end of a judicial proceedings civil or criminal, is
to ascertain the true facts and dispense justice Anything that tends to curtail or impair the freedom of the judicial
proceedings must of necessity result in hampering the due administration of law and in interfering with the course
of justice" (at pp. 71, 72).
2 Re Read and Hugginson (St. James Evening Post Case) (1742) 2 Atk 469, 470-471.
3 Aksshay Sharma, Contempt of court and professional ethics, December 16, 2020.
 4
Importance of contempt of court
A legal term for disobedience to a court's ruling or direction is contempt. Since the judiciary
is regarded as the last holdout of justice and hope for the people of any country, the recognition of
court disobedience and the ability to punish for it are crucial for a country like India that is built on
the idea of the rule of law, which necessitates the supremacy of the law. The Supreme Court Bar
Association made a decision. In 1995, the Indian government decided that punishments should help
both fix the problem and help the person who was hurt. The punishments are meant to help the
person who was hurt get what they need to feel better. If people don't get punished for ignoring
court orders, then the court system won't work properly. This is why punishing civil contempt has a
public policy role1.

Contempt Of Court Distinguished From Libel

Contempt of court differs from libel inasmuch as whether the attack is made on the official
act of the judge or his personal act. A libel on a judge is contempt when it refers to his action in
court or as to what he did judicially out of it.2 But a libel is not contempt if it refers to the judge
outside his judicial capacity.3 When a libelous statement though justifiable, actually interferes with
the course of justice, there is contempt.4
Contempt of court has traditionally been divided into two main constituent parts, according
to whether the contempt is
◆ Civil contempt means 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.
◆ 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
• scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court,
• prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding
• interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration
of justice in any other manner.

1 Aksshay Sharma, Contempt of court and professional ethics, December 16, 2020.
2 In re Wallace (1866) L.R.I. P.C. 283.
3 In re Bahama Island 1893 A.C. 183 P.C.
4 Coats v. Chadurck (1894) I Ch. 347.
 5
The reason behind the classification is mainly that the person against whom the contempt
proceedings are initiated should be informed as to which is the contempt he is charged with,
whether civil or criminal, since it might result in significant differences in regard to the following
matters:
1 rules of appeal
2 privilege from arrest
3 power to pardon
4 punishment and execution
5 rules of evidence and procedure
6 settlement of the dispute
7 discharge or release on compliance.1
Broadly speaking, civil contempt’s are contempt’s which involve a private injury occasioned
by disobedience to the judgment, order or other process of the court. On the other hand, criminal
contempt’s are right from their inception in the nature of offences.2 A criminal contempt is conduct
that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court. A civil contempt is failure to do
something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposite party
therein. It is conceivable that the dividing line between the acts constituting criminal and those
constituting civil contempt’s may become indistinct in those cases where the two gradually merge
into each other.3
Unless the disobedience is wilful, civil contempt is not involved.4 But in case of criminal
contempt, intention, motive, or even knowledge is not the criterion though they may be considered
for the mitigation of a sentence. In a civil contempt the purpose is to force the contemnor to do
something for the benefit of the other party. In criminal contempt the proceedings are by way of
punishment for a wrong not so much to a party or individual but to the public at large by interfering
with the normal process of law or diminishing the majesty of the court.5

1 Eliahu Harmon, "Civil and Criminal Contempts of Court" 25 Mod. L.R. 179 (1962). The author after distinguishing
contempt on the above. lines, concludes that the distinction is not purely academic.
2 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 21 (1963). Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also recognized the
distinction in the definition. providing special procedure for cognizance of criminal contempt, hearing of cases and
in the matter of appeals.
3 Legal Remembrancer vs. Motilal Ghose ILR 41 Cal. 173, 252. The same view was expressed by Solmon L.J. in
Jennison vs. Baker (1971) 2QB 52.
4 State v. Dasirathi Jha AIR 1951 Pat. 443.
5 Vijay Pratap Singh v. Ajit Prasad AIR 1966 All. 305. See also Tek Chand, The Law of Contempt of Court and
Legislature 65 (1949); Note "procedure for trying contempts in the Federal Courts" 73 Harv. L. Rev. 353 (1959-60).
 6
Development Of The Law Of Contempt Of Court In India
The law of contempt of court in India is nothing but the off spring of the British
administration of justice in India. Creation of different courts of record in India necessarily meant
the introduction of English Law of Contempt in some measure.1 Establishment of the Court of
Mayor and Corporation of Madras under the East India Company's Charter of 16872 was the earliest
court of record created in India. Admiralty Court established under the Royal Charter of 1683 had
the right to hear appeals and hence Admiralty Court was also considered a court of record. Later
Mayor's Court was created by the Charter of 17273, which was reconstituted by the Charter of
1753.4 These courts had power to punish for contempt.
In pursuance of the Regulating Act, 1773 the Mayor's Court at Calcutta was succeeded by
the Supreme Court established under a charter granted in 1774. The Mayor's Court at Bombay and
Madras were superseded by the Recorder's Court at Madras. It was abolished by the Government of
India Act, 1800 and the Supreme Court was established in its place by the Charter of 1801. A
Supreme Court was established in the place of Recorder's Court at Bombay by a Charter granted
under the Statute of 1823. The Recorder's Court and Supreme Court had the same powers for
punishing for contempt as the superior courts of England. The Supreme Courts were in turn
succeeded by the High Courts under the High Courts Act of 1861. The High Court of Calcutta was a
court of record in all its jurisdictions and therefore possessed power to commit for contempt. 5 In
1886, the High Court of Allahabad was established under the High Courts Act, 1861 and was
constituted a court of record.
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered this jurisdiction of the High
Court in 1879 in Martin v. Lawrence.6 Mr. Justice White observed:
The jurisdiction of the court, under which this process (of contempt) issued is a jurisdiction that it
has inherited from the old Supreme Court and was conferred upon that court by the Charters of the
authority of the then court of King's Bench and the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain, and
this jurisdiction has not been removed or affected by the Civil Procedure Code.7
By virtue of section 106 of the Government of India Act, 1915 the same jurisdiction, powers
and authority, were allowed to be continued in all High Courts then in existence. Section. 113 of the
1 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 4 (1963).
2 Charter granted by the Governor and Company of Merchants Trading into the East Indies, to the Mayor Aldermen
and Burgesses of Madras (at p. 88).
3 II Vestiges of Old Madras 1640-1800. 241, 242 (Charter of 1727,249).
4 Id. at 439-440 (Charter of 1753, 253).
5 In Re Abdool and Mehtaf (1867) 8 W.R. (Cr.) 32. 49.
6 I.L.R. 4 Cal. 444.
7 Id. at 445.
 7
Act authorized the establishment of new High Courts by Letters Patent with the same authority,
powers and jurisdiction. In 1919 the Lahore High Court was established by Letters Patent as a court
of record. In 1925 that High Court punished a contempt of itself in a summary manner in Habib, son
of Sadullah Khan, in the matter of1 In this case it was observed by Broadway, J: The authorities on
the subject have been carefully examined by me and I am satisfied that this court as a court of
record has jurisdiction to deal summarily with contempt’s of this nature.
The leading authority on the subject is the Privy Council and its decision in Surendranath
Banerjee v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal.2 It was held
by Justice Peacock that the High Court in the presidencies are superior courts of record and the
offence of contempt and the powers of High Court for punishing it, are the same there as in the
country, not by virtue of the Penal Code for British India, and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1882,
but by virtue of the common law of England.3
The inherent summary powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt were later affirmed
by Lahore4 and Patna5 High Courts. Privy Council also accepted the same view in Ambard v.
Attorney General, Trinidad and Tabago.6 These decisions show that the power to punish summarily
for contempt is not created by statute but inherent in every court of record. The Government of
India Act, 1935 continued the power, authority and special summary jurisdiction of various High
Courts then existing.7
Arts. 1298 and 2159 of our Constitution made the Supreme Court and High Courts
respectively as courts of record. Art. 225, permits the High Courts to continue the jurisdiction and
powers which they possessed immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Though
the High Court as a court of record had the power to punish contempt of itself, doubt arose as to the
power of the court of record to punish contempt of subordinate courts.
Prior to the passing of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, there was a conflict of opinion
among the different High Courts as to their power to commit for contempt of subordinate courts.

1 AIR 1926 Lah. 1 (Full Bench).

2 Id. at 2.
3 I.L.R. 10 Cal. 109.
4 Id. at 132.
5 In the Matter of Muslim Outlook AIR 1927 Lah. 610.
6 Emperor v. Murali Manohar Prasad. AIR 1929 Pat. 72.
7 AIR 1936 P.C. 141.
8 Art. 129: The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself.
9 Art. 215: Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself.
 8
Madras1 and Bombay2 High Courts expressed the view that the High Courts could have jurisdiction
to deal with contempts of the mofussil courts. But the Calcutta High Court3 expressed the view that
the High Courts in India did not possess identical powers in matters of contempt of their
subordinate courts as possessed by the Court of King's Bench in England.
In 1926, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with contempt of subordinate
court under its inherent powers as a court of record.4
There was no general law providing for punishment of contempt of these courts. The Indian
Penal Code 18625 made certain acts constituting specific offences punishable as contempt.
For making the concept of contempt more specific and for providing punishment for
contempt of subordinate courts, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was passed. Section 26 of the Act
empowered the High Courts of judicature to exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority to punish
contempt of subordinate courts.
The Act was amended in 1937 to make it clear that the limits of punishment provided in the
Act related not only to contempt of subordinate courts but also to all cases. The 1926 Act did not
contain any provision with regard to contempt of courts subordinate to Chief Courts and Judicial
Commissioner's Court and also extra-territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in matters of contempt.
So the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 was passed to remove these doubts and this Act replaced the
1926 Act. Section 37 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 conferred the power on the High Courts
including that of the Judicial Commissioner's Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts.
Section 4 of the Act limited the punishment to be awarded in case of contempt.

1 In the Matter of K. Venkat Rao, 12 I.C. 293.

2 In re Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, AIR 1920 Bom. 175.
3 Legal Remembrancer v. Motilal Ghose, 1913, ILR Cal.173.
4 In re. Hadi Hussain v. Nassiruddin Haider AIR 192 All. 623.
5 Sections 191 to 229 of the Indian Penal Code: Sec. 191 deals with giving false evidence; Sec. 192 fabricating false
evidence; Ss. 201 to 204 Disappearance of evidence and false information; Ss. 206-210, Abuse of the process of
court; Sec. 228 contempt of court; Ss. 217-223, 225A Unlawful acts of public servants.
6 Section 2 of the 1926 Act: Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the High Courts of Judicature established by
Letters Patent shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and authority in accordance with the same
procedure and practice
7 Section 3 of the 1952 Act:
i) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. 2 every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and
authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it has
and exercise in respect of contempt of itself.
ii) No High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court
subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
 9
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 though sound so far as it goes, touches only the fringes
of the subject. While its existing provisions should be continued there is need for widening
considerably the scope of the Act.1 The unsatisfactory nature of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952
necessitated the government to constitute a Committee in 1961 with H.N. Sanyal as Chairman to
study the matter and make recommendations for the proper functioning of the law of contempt,
because the government felt that the law relating to contempt of court was uncertain, undefined and
unsatisfactory. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee, Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 was passed which can be described as a comprehensive legislation.

Categories of Contempt of Courts

Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that Contempt of Court means
Civil Contempt or criminal contempt contempt’s of Court into two categories, civil contempt and
criminal contempt. However, the categories of contempt are not closed by this definition.2 There are
several instances of contempt which are taken as contempt of Court, although They do not fall in
any of the categories specified in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 For example, undue delay in
pronouncing the order by a Judge or a Judge Coming late to the Court may amount to contempt of
Court, but they are not covered exactly by the definition or classification of contempt in the Act
The basis of categorization of Contempt of Courts is the nature of interference with the due
administration of justice. The proceedings of the contempt are always with reference to the
administration of justice. The whole set up of a court is for the purpose of the administration of
justice and, therefore, any act or omission which interferes or tends to interfere with the
administration of justice is required to be prevented and punished at interference with the
administration of justice may be in the form of disobedience to the order of the Court or in the form
of scandalizing the Court or lowering the authority of the Court in the eyes of the public.
For civil contempt there must be disobedience to the order, etc., of the Court for breach of
undertaking given to the Court and the disobedience, breach must be wilful. To constitute 'civil
contempt' both these elements must be proved. Civil contempt may be taken as a failure to obey the
order of the Court issued for the benefit of the opposite party. The purpose of proceeding for the
civil contempt is not only to punish the contempt, but also to exercise enforcement and obedience to
the order of the Court or provides an instant and quick remedy to get the order passed by t
implement. It is a sanction to enforce compliance with the order of Court to compensate for losses

1 Supra n. 44,p. 9.
2 Almat Als Superintendent. District fail, Trpur, 1987 Cr LJ 15. Association, Tis Hazan Cort State of Gumrat, AIR
1991 SC 217. Mishra, All 1995 SC 2348 7. Debi Prasad Shari The King Emperor, AIR 1943 PC 22
 10
or damages sustained by reason of non-compliance Civil Contempt, actually, serves dual purpose.
They are
✔ vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptions, conduct.
✔ coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the Court requires of him.
To constitute 'Civil Contempt' the followings are required to be proved. 1
1) There is disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking given
to the Court
2) The disobedience or breach is wilful.

These requirements may be discussed as follows:2

i) Disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking given to the
Court
To constitute civil contempt there must be order, decree, etc. of the Court or undertaking
given to the Court and then must be disobedience thereto or breach thereof.
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 and, therefore, the
disobedience of such order will not amount to contempt of Court. It has been held that there is no
contempt when the undertaking violated is given in a proceeding which was without jurisdiction."
A presumption attaches to the order of the court that the Court passing it has jurisdiction to pass
such order, however this presumption may be rebutted. The burden to prove that the Court which
has passed the order had no jurisdiction to pass it or the proceeding in which the undertaking was
given was without jurisdiction lies on the person who alleges it.

ii) Wilful disobedience or breach

For civil contempt the disobedience of the order, decree, etc. of the Court or breach of undertaking
given to the Court must be wilful. There was no definition of civil or criminal contempt in the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1926 and of 1952. The Sanyal Committee Report also did not contain
any definition of civil or criminal contempt. The report of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament
on the Bill suggested a definition and the qualification of "wilful" was introduced by it. Such
qualification is not found under English and American law. Under English Law it is well established
that contempt may be committed in the absence of wilful disobedience on the party of the
contemner. However it has also been made clear that commital or sequestration will not be ordered,

1 C.J. Miller, Contempt of Court, 2 (1976).

2 1988 Cr. L... 1223. 4. AIR 1970 SC 1767 at 1770.
 11
unless contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Accidental and unintentional
disobedience is not sufficient to justify sequestration or committal Warrington, J., has observed
clearly the act is done in violation of an injunction then it is no answer to say that the act was not
contumacious in the sense that, in doing it, there was no direct intention to disobey the order." Thus,
under English law it is not necessary to show that the disobedience or breach has been intentional.
Even in U.S.A. such qualification is not found Douglas, J. has made it clear that the absence of
willfulness does not relieve from the Civil Contempt."
In India the Supreme Court has, often, pointed out that in order to punish a person or authority for
contempt of Court, the disobedience to any judgment etc. or breach of undertaking to the Court
must be wilful. Thus, mere disobedience of the order of Court is not sufficient to constitute civil
contempt.
The House of Lords has also made it clear that to establish that the disobedience is wilful, it
is not necessary to show that it is contumacious in the sense that there is direct intention to disobey
the order. It is sufficient to show at effective administration of justice requires some penalty for
disobedience to the order of the Court, if it is more than casual, accidental or unintentional.
The emence of the civil contempt is wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order or writ of a court, and not mere inaction to give effect of it. The conduct of the alleged
contemner must be wilful showing deliberate and conscious disregard of the Court's order, or a
despising or disdamiul attitude towards the verdict of the Court Mere inaction on the part of the
pavement or its servants to take any action to reinstate a decree-holder and want him all the benefits
and privileges or services will not amount to contempt Court. But where it has wilfully and
deliberately refrained from giving effect the decree, a case of contempt may arise On this issue the
view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court appears to be more correct and pragmatic. It is
observed that from the dictionary meaning of the term wilful and the decisions of the Court, it is
reasonable to derive that the term 'wilful disobedience used in section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 cannot be construed to mean that an act must in all cases be designed and
deliberate to be held as Civil Contempt. If a party who is fully in know of the order of Court or is
conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the Court's order, ignores it or acts in
violation of the Court's order, it must be held at disobedience is wilful." Ordinarily, it is never
practicable to prove the actual intention behind the act or omission. A Court can approach the
question only objectively and it may presume the intention from the act done as every man is
resumed to intend the probable consequence of his act wilful disobedience cannot be construed to
mean that act must be designed or deliberate"1

1 Ninz Mohammad v. Stae of Haryana, (1994) 6 ACC 332.

 12
Civil Contempt
Civil contempt consists of disobeying the orders and processes of the Court.1 According to
section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 'Civil Contempt' means wilful disobedience of
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of
undertaking given to a Court. The purpose of the proceedings for the civil contempt is not only to
punish the contemner but also to exercise the enforcement and obedience to the order of the court.2
Therefore, for an action in civil contempt there must be breach of directions of court and it must be
wilful, clear and unambiguous. In Harshibshnor v. Hashim Ali, it has been held that for civil
contempt there must be breach of directions of the court directly or indirectly. It is hardly necessary
to stress that in order to justify an action in contempt, the petitioner must take out a clear and
unambiguous case of disobedience or breach. Where, therefore, an order or direction has been
disobeyed or not, must obviously be decided on the express terms of the order or direction and not
on what may be supposed to have been intended to be provided in the order. The language used in
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is wilful 'disobedience'. It was ultimately held that respondents
had not disobeyed the orders of the court.

It has been observed in Aligarh Muslim Board v. Ekta Tonga Mazdoor Union, that civil contempt
serves dual purpose, i.e., vindication of public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and
coercion to compel the contemner to do what the court requires him to do.
The settled law is that there should be specific direction of the court to do or restrain from
doing an act, which is said to be not obeyed. In Sadhu Saran Rai v. S.P. Arya, Secretary Chikitsha
Shiksha Ayurvedic, Health Service,' it has been held that the court is not satisfied that any case for
action is made out for disobedience of the High Court's order for issue of notice for contempt of
High Court's order. However, the rejection of this application for taking action under contempt of
High Court's order, does not mean that the respondents are free to disobey the order and not to
comply the orders of the High Court dated 23.1.92 for an indefinite period. It is expected that the
department shall take necessary steps for complying with the orders of the High Court within a
reasonable time. There is no exact definition of reasonable time. The Court said that in its opinion a
period of three weeks would be sufficient period for complying the High Court's order. The High
Court directed the respondents to comply with the order and declare the result of the petitioner, and
if he is declared successful, thereafter in next three months respondents to issue appointment letter
so as to comply further direction in the judgment dated 23.1.1992.

1 Rajeev Dhavan. Contempt of the Court and the Press, 1st Edn, p. 3.
2 1988 Cr. L... 1223. 4. AIR 1970 SC 1767 at 1770.
 13
Criminal Contempt
Criminal contempt has been classified into two categories. They are direct criminal
contempt or contempt in the face of the court and indirect criminal contempt or contempt through
words spoken, written or through publication made outside the court.
• Direct criminal contempt is treated as specific offence and it is dealt with in the Indian Penal
Code.691 Corresponding procedure is contained in the Criminal Procedure Code.2
• Indirect criminal contempt or contempt through publication was first considered by the
Calcutta High Court in In the Matter of William Taylor.3

Essentials
The Contempt of Courts Act. 1971, is the first legislative enactment which defines the
expression 'criminal contempt. Prior to this Act there was no statutory definition of 'Criminal
Contempt; however the superior courts being courts of record had inherent power not only to punish
for the criminal contempt but also to determine what amounts to criminal contempt.
A criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and
authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an action obstructing the administration of
justice which leads to bring the court into the disrepute or disrespect.4
The position of English Law has been well summed up in Halsbury's Laws of England.
Criminal contempt may be committed either in the face of the Court by speaking words or act done
in or in the precincts of the Court which obstructs or interferes with the due administration of justice
or is calculated to do so. The criminal contempt may be committed outside the Court. Words spoken
or otherwise published or acts done outside the Court which are intended to interfere or likely to
interfere with or obstruct the fair administration of justice are criminal contempt.
In America it is a considered view that even where the statute defines contempt, the
definition cannot be said all inclusive as to exclude other acts conducts that may constitute
contempt. However, it is taken as a conduct which tends to bring the authonty and administration of
law into disrespect or disregard, interteres prejudicial parties or their witnesses during a litigation or
otherwise tends to impede or embarrass or obstruct the Court in discharge of its duties. It has been
defined as despising of the authority of justice or dignity of the Court. It includes the conduct that,
in law consitutes an offence against the authority and dignity of the court or radical officer in the
performance of a judicial function. However, the publication or statement reflecting upon a

1 Section 228.
2 Section 480-487.
3 Reported year later in AIR 1918 Cal. 713.
4 Corpus Juris Secondum, Vol 17, para5.
 14
judgment in performance of ministerial duties as distinguished from the judicial duties, does not
constitute such contempt
In India the definition of contempt of court is found in clause (c) of Section 2 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It provides that Criminal Contempt means the publication whether
by words, spoken or written or by signs or by responsible representations, or otherwise of any
matter of the doing of any act whatesover which
i. scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower 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 obtructs or tends to obstruct, theadministration of
justice in any other manner.
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 which would lower the authority of the Court. The
scope of the criminal contempt has been made very wide so as to empower the Court to preserve the
majesty of law which is an indispensable condition for the rule of law. Before taking up the specific
ingredients of the criminal contempt it is better to deal with certain issues which are in respect of all
the ingredients.
In Arunadhati Roy1, The Supreme Court has held that the defence that allegations contained
in reply filed to contempt notice cannot be contempt in view of section 499 of Indian Penal Code is
not tenable. The law of defamation under the Penal Code cannot be equated with the law of
contempt of court.
The necessity to restrict the freedom of speech of the individual on the ground of contempt
of court had been recognized by Lord Hardwicke. L.C. in St. James Evening Post Case 2 in the year
1742. It was subsequently followed by Justice Wilmot in The King v. Almon3 who expressed the
view that constructive contempt or indirect contempt4 can be dealt with by summary procedure.
The principle of law as laid down in Almon's5 case has long been accepted by the courts as
the firmly established basis of the modern law on the subject. Indirect contempt or constructive

1 AIR, 2002, 5C 1375

2 (1742) 2 Atk. 469.
3 97 E.R. 94. "When the nature of the offence of libeling judges for what they do in their judicial capacities, either in
court or out of court comes to be considered, it does in my opinion, become more proper for attachment than any
other cause whatsoever (Id. at 99).
4 C.J. Miller, Contempt of Court, 2 (1976).
5 Supra n. 11.
 15
contempt was subsequently followed in the case of Clement, Miller v. Knox, Re Johnson, Reg v.
Grey and so on.1
It was further followed in In the matter of Banks and Fenwick and also in Bengalee case.
Renkin C.J. of Calcutta High Court also applied constructive contempt in Ananta Lal Singh v.
Alfred Henry Watson. The Privy Council accepted these principles in Ambard v. Attorney General
Trinidad and Tobago and in Debi Prasad v. Emperor. The principles as enunciated by the Privy
Council was followed by the Lahore High Court in Emperor v. Khushal Chand and laid down the
following tests to ascertain whether a publication amounted to contempt of court or not.
a) That something has been published which either is clearly intended or atleast is calculated to
prejudice a trial which is pending.
b) That the offending matter was published with the knowledge of the pending cause or with
the knowledge that the cause was imminent.
c) That the matter published tended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice or
was calculated substantially to create prejudice in the public mind.
These principles as laid down by the Lahore High Court have been invariably applied in subsequent
cases to ascertain whether there is contempt of court or not.

i) Scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court or interfering with judicial proceeding
or administration of justice
To constitute criminal contempt the publication or doing of any other must have resulted in
any or all of the consequences specified in section (i), (ii) and (iii), namely-
i. It scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court;
or
ii. It prejudices or interferes or tend to interfere with, the due course of any proceedings; or
iii. It interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.
iv.iv.
These requirements may be discussed as follows-
(i) Scandalizing the Court or lowering the authority of the Court.-
The Publications or doing of any other act which scandalizes or tends to ndalize or lowers or
tend to scandalize or lower the authority of the Court is taken as criminal contempt. For this purpose
1 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 2 (1971). This committee has been constituted in England in the
year 1971, under the Chairmanship of The Right Honourable Lord Justice Phillimore. It was constituted to study
the law of contempt of court. Other members of the committee are: The Honourable Lord Cameron; Robin Day
Esq. The Right Hon'ble Lord Grant, General Sir John Hackett Derek Hodgson Esq; Q.C. David Hopkinson, Esq;
I.G. Inglis Esq. The committee submitted its report with recommendations in the year 1974.
 16
actual scandalization of the Court or lowering of the authority of the Court is not necessary; it is
sufficient if the publication has tendency to scandalize or lower the authority of Court.

Scandalizing the Court may be taken to mean any act done or writing, published calculated to bring
a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt to lower its or his authority.

ii) Prejudice to or Interference with, the due course of any judicial proceeding
The publication which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with,the due course of
any judicial proceeding is taken as contempt of Court. Actually, media trial or trial by newspaper is
not considered proper because it effects the fairness of trial and is likely to cause prejudice to or
likely to interfere with, due administration of justice in the particular case. The power to punish the
contempt of Court is the means by which the legal system protects itself from the publication which
may unduly influence the result of litigation."
Robertson & Nicol have tried to justify the restriction on media trial on the ground of the
European Convention on Human Rights. They have observed, “The power to punish for contempt
may be justified by reference to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 provides that,
in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him every
one, is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. This is one the rights of others which can justify a restriction on
freedom of speech guaranteed disproportionate to the aim of securing a fair trial." Lord Denning has
observed that the press plays vital part in the administration of Justice. It is the watch-dog to see
that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board, but the watch-dog may sometimes
break loose and have to be punished for misbehaviour. Actually the media trial or trial by the
newapaper supplants the established institutions entrusted with the administration justice and is
likely to adversely affect the fair trial by the Judges or Courts accordance with the substantive and
procedural laws of the country. It is the main function of the Court to decide the cases fairly and
impartially accordance with the law of the country and any publication which prejudicially
interferes or has tendency to prejudice or interference with such function of Court, will amount to
contempt of Court. The reason thereof has been explained by an American Judge in the following
words': "If men including Judges and journalists were angels, there would be no problems of
contempt of Court. Angelic Judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences on angelic
journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish contempt as a means of
safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of
men to decide, is not in privilege accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of Court is
safeguard not for Judges as persons, but for the function which they exercise is a condition of that
 17
function indispensable for a free society that in a particular controversy pending before a Court and
waiting judgment, human being however, strong, should not be torn from their moorings of
impartiality by the undertown of extraneous influence.

iii)Interference or obstruction with administration of justice in other manner

The publication or doing of any other act which interferes or tend to interfere with or
obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of any other manner is also taken as contempt of
Court. This clause is a reiduary clause and it covers the cases of the criminal contempt not expressly
covered by sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus the
publication or doing of any other act which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends
to obstruct the administration of justice in a manner, otherwise than by scandalizing the Court or
lowering the authority of the Court or by causing prejudice or by interfering with due course of any
judicial proceeding would fall within the ambit of this sub-clause and, thus would amount criminal
contempt under this sub-clause. The words “judicial proceeding" has been stated only in sub-clause
(ii) and not in other two sub-clauses. It is obvious that the phrase 'administration of justice' is wider
than the phrase "course of judicial proceeding". Consequently scandalizing of the Court or lowering
the authority of the Court in its administrative capacity would also be covered by sub-clauses (i) and
(iii). Besides, to constitute criminal contempt under sub-clause (i) , the publication or doing of any
other act is required to be with reference to a particular judicial proceeding. There is no such
requirement for constituting criminal contempt under sub-clauses (i) and. The publication or other
acts, in general terms, which amount to a interference with the administration of justice without
referring to a particular judicial proceeding would amount to criminal contempt within the meaning
of sub-clause (iii). For this purpose actual interference with the course of administration of justice is
not necessary. If it has tendency of interference with the administration of justice, it would amount
to contempt of Court."
Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 describe three distinct species of criminal
contempt. However, they are not always mutually exclusive. The expression "administration of
justice" is very wide and includes even the situation covered by sub-clauses (i) and (iii). However,
sub-clause (iii) is in the nature of residuary clause and includes such publication or doing of act
which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of justice in a manner otherwise than
by scandalizing the Court, lowering the authority of the Court or by prejudicing or by interference
with due course of any judicial proceeding. The interference with the Judges in discharge of their
duties amounts to ontempt of Court.
 18
CONCLUSIONS

The “Contempt of Court” is well studied in this writing and the following conception is
learnt from the present work:
"Everyone must respect the decisions of courts and no one can interfere with the working of
courts". So, we must respect the Judiciary which is one of the pillars to uplift the country.
 19
REFERENCES

1. Dr. Kailash Rai, Legal Ethics, Accountability for Lawyers & Bench-Bar Relations, Central
Law Publications.
2. K. Balasankaran Nair, Law of contempt of court in India, Atlantic publishers and
distributors, 2004.
3. J.P.S Sirohi, Professional Ethics, Accountancy for Lawyers & Bench Bar Relation,
Allahabad Law Agency.
4. Dr. Kailash Rai, Legal Ethics Accountancy for Lawyers and Bench-Bar Relations, Central
Law Publications.
5. Dr. S.R. Myneni, Professional Ethics Accountancy for Lawyers and Bench-Bar Relation,
Asla Law House.
6. Mr. A.E. Chelliah, Mrs. C. Vasanthakumari Chellaiah, Legal Ethics, The Role of the Bench
& the Bar in The Temple of Justice
7. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l255-Contempt-of-Court.html
8. https://blog.ipleaders.in/contempt-court-professional-ethics