INTRODUCTION:

The history of exercising contempt jurisdiction and punishing for contempt of court can be traced back to the 13th century. In ancient times, the king held ultimate authority to deliver justice, and his power was considered exhaustive and unquestionable. During this period, people had no right to criticize or condemn any act of the king, and doing so was punishable. As time progressed and societal patterns changed, the workload of the king became overburdened, leading to the delegation of authority to functioning bodies, such as judges. The introduction of contempt of court served the purpose of maintaining the dignity of the court and ensuring the smooth functioning of the administration. It aimed to prevent disruptions and uphold the faith that citizens have in the judiciary and its processes.

MEANING:

Contempt of court, in simple terms, refers to actions or behaviours that undermine the authority of the judiciary and disrupt the smooth functioning of the legal system. This can include:

• Anything that limits or interferes with judicial proceedings.
• Conduct that shows disrespect or disregard for the authority and administration of the law.
• Interfering with or prejudicing parties or witnesses during legal proceedings.
• Speech or writing that obstructs or hinders the administration of justice.
• Publishing words that bring the administration of justice into contempt.

Case Laws :

Aligarh municipal Board vs Ekka Tunga Majdoor Union:

It was observed by SC that the contempt proceedings against a person who has failed  to comply with the Court's Order serves two purposes:

1. Validation of public Interest by punishing the contemptuous conduct of the contemner
2. To compel the contemner to do the act, which the law requires him to do.

KINDS OF CONTEMPT

According to Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt.

Civil Contempt

Section 2(b) of the Act, defines “Civil Contempt” as 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

Section 2(c) of the Act, defines “Criminal Contempt”  as 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 act whatsoever which –

1. Scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower or tends to lower, the authority of any court, or
2. Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
3. Interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner

1.  Scandalizes or tends to Scandalize:

It may include Defaming or attacking a judge or a court as a whole, with or without reference any case. “Scandalising the Court” is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either post or pending or any specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of justice.

In Vijay Kurle Case of 2019, SC held-No litigant has a right to attribute motives to a Judge. No litigant has a right to question the integrity of a Judge. When the ability, integrity and dignity of the Judges are questioned, this is an attack on the institution"

M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015),

Facts :

In 2010, a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala issued orders banning public meetings on roads and road margins to ensure smooth traffic flow. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2010, the Appellant delivered a speech at a public meeting in Kannur, Kerala, protesting against petroleum price hikes. This speech, widely reported by the media, criticized court verdicts and judges, suggesting they were disregarding the interests of the country and the people. The Appellant's remarks seemed to challenge the authority of the judiciary, implying that judges should resign if their verdicts weren't respected by the public. This controversial speech sparked legal proceedings, which led to the case aforementioned.

Held : A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam found the Petitioner guilty of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court sentenced the Petitioner to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000.

On Appeal to Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Kerala regarding the criminal contempt case against the Appellant. However, the Supreme Court decided to reduce the imprisonment sentence from six months to four weeks.

In Re: Hon’ble Justice Shri C.S. Karnan (2017) 

Facts of the Case:

Justice C.S. Karnan, a judge of High Court if Madras, took several controversial steps during his tenure as a High Court judge. Just two years after his appointment, he alleged discrimination to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, sparking agitation within the Madras High Court. In a highly debated judgment in 2013, he defined marriage in a controversial manner, linking it with pre-marital sex, leading to its dismissal by the Supreme Court a year later. He further created uproar by barging into a courtroom and demanding to file an affidavit, accusing partiality in judge appointments. Tensions escalated as he accused fellow judges of discrimination, leading to requests for his transfer by the Judges of the High Court of Madras. He accused the Chief Justice of Madras High Court of harassment and corruption, resulting in his transfer to Calcutta High Court. He attempted to halt his transfer through an unprecedented self-issued order, but it was swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court.

In another controversial act, he accused several Supreme Court judges of corruption and sentenced them to imprisonment under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, leading to widespread condemnation. Ultimately, Justice Karnan's actions were seen as disruptive to the judicial system and disrespectful to constitutional principles.

Held : A historic judgment was delivered by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. The bench ruled against Justice Karnan, finding him guilty of hurling false accusations against Chief Justices of various High Courts, Supreme Court justices, and the Madras High Court.

The judgment highlighted that Justice Karnan's statements lacked bona fide intentions and constituted a dishonour to the court's decorum. Despite attempting to shield himself with his Dalit identity, his actions were deemed unacceptable and disrespectful to the Indian judiciary.

As a result, Justice Karnan, who was serving as a judge of the Calcutta High Court, was found guilty of contempt of court and the Indian judiciary. He was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, marking a significant moment in the legal history of India.

Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court stated that making scurrilous allegations or scandalizing the court in pleadings constitutes criminal contempt.

The court emphasized following points in this case:

• Advocates and parties must conduct themselves with dignity and decorum before the court.
• Allowing the reputation or dignity of the judge to be attacked in pleadings undermines the court's respect and jeopardizes judicial independence.
• The Supreme Court asserted that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions under articles 19(2), 129, and 215 of the Constitution.
• Article 19(2) permits restrictions on freedom of speech and expression if it amounts to criminal contempt.
• Even if the contemner modifies or withdraws statements, the court must determine if the original statements constituted contempt of court.

2.  Prejudicing due Course of Judicial Proceedings:

It is incumbent upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences.

Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party amount to contempt.

Case Laws:

P.C. Sen, In re, (1969) 2 SC: To make a speech intending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt.

Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021)

It was held that fair criticism of judgment after the judgment is pronounced is permissible in law, however, making any statement or giving press interviews during the pendency of the litigation is not permissible. Therefore, no lawyer or litigant should either give an interview, talk to the press or make any statement with regard to pending litigation before any Court.

3.  Interference/obstruction with the Administration of Justice in any other manner:It is a residuary clause which covers those cases which are not expressly covered under section 2(c) of the Act, e.g. threatening parties to the litigation or the counsel of the opposite party.

or

Approaching a judge for undue favour

                  Case laws

                  Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat 1991

It was held that Criminal Contempt is wide enough to include any act that tends to interfere with the administration of justice or lowers the authority of the Court. The Court protects a public interest while using contempt power. It is not to protect the Court from insults to its dignity for its own sake, but because there exists a public interest in preserving the decency and decorum of the Courts.

The SC took into consideration the different degrees of the participation of the various culprits in this episode and punished them in accordance with the degree of their involvement in the matter.  State Government was asked to take action against the DGP as well who was indifferent in the matter, since he is the head of the Police and all that jazz. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CONTEMPT  

Amongst all the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a), i.e., freedom of speech and expression is the most sensitive one and is prone to controversy. If exercised negligently, without abiding by the limitations prescribed under Article 19(2), a person, on one hand can be booked for defamation and on the other, hands the probability of prosecution for “Criminal Contempt”.

Article 129 of the Constitution, makes the Supreme Court “a court of record” and confers power to punish for contempt of itself.

Whereas, Article 142 empowers the Court to provide punishment for contempt, subject to any other law made in this behalf by the Parliament.  Similar powers have been vested in the High Court by the virtue of Article 215 which makes the High Court “a court of record”, implying that only Supreme Court and High  Courts are empowered to adjudicate criminal contempt proceedings.

Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 specifically empowers the High  Courts to punish contempt of subordinate courts.