THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS

PROVIDED that it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent to which the provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.

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;

(c) �criminal contempt� means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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.

COMMENTS

The civil court while executing a decree against a judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment and decree is willful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute whatever may be the consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has involved the jurisdiction of the court to initiate a proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before such contemner is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was willful and intentional.�Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 1994 (6) SCC 332

The court must always be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same time it will be inadvisable to require compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the instance of the person proceeded against for contempt.�M.I. Khanday v. A.M. Rather 1994 (4) SCC 34

In a government of laws and not of men the executive branch of government bears a grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial order.�Mohd. Aslam v. UOI 1994 (6) SCC 442

Where an undertaking is given by a party and accepted by the court and order passed on the basis of such undertaking, the order in substance amounts to an injunction restraining the party from acting in breach thereof.�Noorali v. KMM Shetty AIR 1990 SC 464.

Where there is willful breach of undertaking the court has not only the power but in appropriate cases, the duty to enforce obedience to the terms of the undertaking given to it.�Kanta Gupta v. VIII Additional District Judge Supp 1 SCC 219

Where a case of willful disobedience is made out the court will not hesitate and will convict the delinquent officer and so lenience in the attitude of the court should be expected from the court as a matter of cause merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer.�Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromani Mondal AIR 1991 SC 281

Unless it is shown that the order of the court about which non compliance is complained is without jurisdiction or void ab initio the parties to the order are bound to comply with it even though it may be illegal.�S.M. Kawale v. State of Maharashtra 1994 CrLJ 735

No court including the court of contempt is entitled go take frivolities and trivialities into account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is taken.-S. Mukhopadhay v. T.D. Karam Chandani 1995 (75) ELT 39

Liberty of free expression is not to be conferred with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters.�In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 446

If freedom of expression sub serves public interest cannot gag it or manacle it; but if the court considered the attack on the Judge or judges successions, offensive, intimidatory or malicious, beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.�C. Ranichandran lyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattchargee 1995 (5) SCC 457

Making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to scandalizing the court. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial officer/authority by any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat to judicial independence and needs to be dealt with the strong arm of law.�U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association 1995 (5) SCC 716

The fact that the order appointing the receiver is improperly procured is no justification for interfering with him since the validity can be challenged by application to the court.�In re Mukunda Chandra Halder 1994 CrLJ (NOC) 189

Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such a jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of law can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to be made in the course of justice, the court must take serious view of the same.�Rakesh Kaul v. Registrar, High Court of J&K 1994 (5) SCC 759

Anyone who makes or attempts to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making a false statement on oath in courts aim at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at steak.�Dhanjay Sharma v. State or Haryana 1995 (3) SCC 757

3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs, ot tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid:

PROVIDED that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of�

(i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, (25 of 1867);

(ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 5 of the said Act.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, a judicial proceeding�

(b) is said to be pending�

i. in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,

ii. in the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)�(see Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), or any other law�

(a) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused, and

(b) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding relates, and n the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or revision has expired:

(c) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed to be pending merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence passed therein are pending.

COMMENTS

Sec. 3 is in nature of an exception to the categories of �criminal contempt� which fall under sub-clause (ii) and to certain categories of �criminal contempt� which fall under sub-clause (iii) of s. 2(c) but not to that category of contempt which falls under sub-clause (i) of s. 2 (c).�Rachpudi S. Rao v. Advocate General AIR 1981 SC 755

It depends upon the subjective state of mind of not knowing of pendency and the objecting demonstration by the person concerned that he had no reasonable grounds for believing that any such proceeding was pending.�Pending v. Standard Trimbak Yardi 1975 CrLJ 531

4. Fair and accurate report of Judicial proceeding not contempt

Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.

COMMENTS

Reading s. 4 with the provision of s. 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is clear that what is meant by the words �judicial proceedings� is day to day proceeding of the court. Assuming though not granting that it is capable of a wider construction, it only permits a publication of �fair and accurate� report of a judicial proceeding.�Subash Chandra v. S.M. Agarwal 1984 CrLJ 481

Before a party to a litigation may be heard in support of its case, it must punge itself of the contempt that tends to impede the course of justice by the contempt that has to be punged should be an admitted or proved contempt and not merely an alleged contempt.�Arun Tandon v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr.LJ 459

5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.

COMMENTS

Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments fair comments even if outspoken but made without maturity or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt of court.�In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 4 SCC 446

In a democracy fair criticism of the working of all the organs of State should be welcome and would in fact promote the interests of democratic functioning. Sec. 5 of the Act evidently enacted with a view to secure the right of fair criticism provides that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of the case which has been heard and finally decided. This does not mean that the right to commit for any contempt by scandalizing the court has become obsolete. The question would still be whether the publication alleged to be offending is by way of fair comment on the merits of the case.�Vincent Panikulangara v. Gopal Kurup 1982 CrLJ 2094

In the case of issuance of mere notice of contempt, the right of hearing cannot be denied. Refusing a right of hearing to a party against whom merely a notice for contempt has been issued is fraught with grave injstice.�Arun Tendan v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr LJ 459

6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to�

(a) any other subordinate court, or

(b) the High Court,

to which it is subordinate.

Explanation: In this section, �subordinate court� means any court subordinate to a High Court.

COMMENTS

Unwarranted and defamatory attack upon the character and ability of the Judge made by the counsel in the application of transfer of proceedings from the said court does not constitute a mere complaint under s. 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, but clearly constitutes criminal contempt by scandalizing the court within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.�State of M.P. v. Chandrakant Saraf 1985 CrLJ 1716

7. Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is to say--

(a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force;

(b) where the court, on ground of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of information of the description which is published;

(c) where the court sits in chambers on in camera for reason connected with public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those proceedings;

(d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an issue in proceedings.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the whole or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera, unless the court has expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public policy, or for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground that it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise of any power vested in it.

COMMENTS

The press reporter and the publisher of newspapers do not have any indefeasible right to put his own gloss on the statements in court by selecting stray passages out of context which might have a tendency to convey to the reader to the prejudice of a party to the proceedings a cause different from what would appear when the statement is read in its own context.�Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union v. K.M. Mathew 1984 CrLJ 1061

8. Other defences not affected

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any other defence which would have been a valid defence in any proceedings for contempt of court has ceased to be available merely by reason of the provisions of this Act.

COMMENTS

If there is specific time limit in the direction, such non compliance cannot be regarded as willful or deliberate disregard of such direction.�Atmaram Kanosir v. L.K.R. Prasad 1990 Cr LJ 169

The power to inflict punishment for contempt of court cannot be invalidated on the ground that law which does not allow plea of truth as a defence is in contravention of Act. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution�V.M. Kanade v. Madhav Godkari 1990 Cr. LJ 190

While ss. 3 to 7 mentions special acts that are not contempt, s. 8 by implication indicated that the Act is not exhausted as to what is not contempt.�High Court v. T.K. Subamma 1990 Cr LJ 1159

An intention to interfere with the administration of justice is not an essential ingredient to the offence of contempt of court. It is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so to interfere.�Pritam Pal v. High Court M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

Truth of the allegation when the contemner says that he can prove, cannot be put up as a defence in charge for contempt of court.�V.M. Kande v. Madhav Gadkari 1990 CrLJ 190

9. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience, breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be punishable apart from this Act.

COMMENTS

What s. 9 contemplates is that an act or action which was not contempt of court before the Act came into force shall not be punishable as contempt of court under the Act.�Harish Chandra Mishra v. Justice S. Ali Ahmed AIR 1986 Pat 65

Sec. 9 makes is absolutely clear that it is only such disobedience that is made punishable as contempt of court which is made specifically punishable under the Act. There is no provision in the Act like s. 34 or s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of which aiding or abetting can be punished.�Sham Kant v. Dayana Bai 1989 Cr LJ 2431

10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:

PROVIDED that 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 (45 of 1860).

CONTEMPTS

Where the misconduct complained of falls under Contempt of Courts Act as well as Penal Code, independent of each other, the accused can be punished for contempt even if he has once bee punished under s. 228 of the Penal Code for the act committed by him, and the principle of double jeopardy is in applicable in the case.�Court on its own motion v. Milkhi Ram 1992 Cr LJ 2130

Power to punish the contemner for itself which is inherent in the court of reward includes power to dismiss the case for contempt. When it has power to dismiss on merit it has the power to dismiss for default. Equally as an adjunct or incidental thereto, it has also inherent power to restore the application dismissed for default.�D. V.K. Kesva Raju v. S.R. Govinda 1990 Cr LJ 299

The corporate veil is being blatantly used as a clock is willfully disobey the orders of the court. Lifting the corporate veil is imperative to punish improper conduct. It is the requirement of public interest that the corporate veil must be lifted to find out the person who disobeyed the order of the court.�yoti Ltd. V. K.K. Bhasin 1987 Cr LJ 1281

11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction

A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.

CONTEMPTS

It is of utmost importance that there has to be a specific order of restraint against a person from indulging in a particular type of activity, the violation of which can make him liable for contempt. Where there is no prayer made for restraining the defendant from doing a particular act, mere status quo will not include such act and one will not be guilty of contempt.�S. Anand Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kumar 1991 Cr LJ 996

12. Punishment for contempt of court

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with find which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

PROVIDED that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

Explanation: An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of tghat specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may be think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance, of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

Explanation: For the purpose of such-sections (4) and (5)�

(a) �company� means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) �director�, in relation to a firm, means partner in the firm

COMMENTS

Those who have to discharge duty in a court of justice are protected by the law are shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate interference in the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officer of the court would amount to criminal contempt and the court must take serious cognizance of such conduct.�Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2176

In a case where a senior IAS officer after having been found guilty of contempt for deliberately not implementing the order of the Supreme Court was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month, the court observed that, if the order of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be willfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting the sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in the country.�J Vasudavan v. T.R. Dhananjaya 1995 (6) SCC 249

The contemner cannot be let off or an apology which is far from sincere, hollow no remorse, no regret, and merely a device to escape the rigour of the law.�M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of P&H AIR 1981 SC 1834

An apology is not a weapon of the defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is it intended to operate as panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, if an injury inflicted and the earnest desire to make such separation as lies in the wrongdoer�s power.�DDA v. Skipper Construction 1995 (3) SCC 507

It is essential to take strong measures to see that justice becomes available to all, who would not get it if lawful orders of competent courts are violated which would result in people with muscle and money power alone being able to settle score on streets.�State of Orissa v. Bisaya Mohanty 1993 Cr LJ 3311

In the instant case the court held the contemner, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt of the court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to threaten, over awe and overbear the court by using insulting disrespectful and threatening language and committed him of the said offence. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Act 129 is sui generis. The jurisdiction to take cognizance by any statute. Neither the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 nor the Advocates Act, 1961, can be preserved into service to restrict the said jurisdiction.�Ir re Vinayachandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584

Where the allegation is one of the disobedience of the order of the court where it is not possible to attribute definite knowledge of order of the court to party proceeded against, the party shall be exonerated.�M.J. Maulana Hasan Ali v. Amiruddin 1992 Cr LJ 1986

The order of holding a person guilty of having committed contempt of court cannot be reviewed by the court which is amenable to correction in an appeal under s. 19 of the Act.�Senior Sub Judge v. R. A. Kawzal 1991 Cr LJ 2432

The Supreme Court being the apex court and a superior court of record has power to determine its jurisdiction under article 129 of the Constitution and it has jurisdiction to initiate or entertain proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts.�Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat 1991 Cr LJ 3086

Where the unconditional apology is offered it has its due reflection on the question of punishment and it cannot completely absolute contempt.�1990 SCC (Cri) 626

Apology must be such as serving a large purpose, as a deterrent to those who treat the orders of the court with callous disregard or indifference. The ritualistic and formal apology in affidavit is not sufficient.�K.P. Isar & Sons (P) Ltd. V. K. Prathydhanan 1992 Cr LJ 2587

13. Contempt not punishable in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

COMMENTS

A willful and deliberate violation of the order of the court must be shown to interfere with the due course of justice before such conduct can be punishment for contempt.�Incon (India) Ltd. V. A.L. Rungta 1981 Cr LJ 144

The importance of the section lies in this that by implication it prevents the court from taking a technical view or a vindictive attitude. Consistent with the respect and dignity in which the court is held, the court is expected to conduct itself in a decent and magnanimous fashion.�anisha Mukherjee v. Ashok Chatterjee 1985 Cr LJ 1224

Where the act complained of substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the board stream of administration of justice that will be punishable in spite of s. 13. If an act undermines the prestige of the court, it is certainly substantially interfering with due course of justice. The impairment of the dignity and the authority of the court is to be exchanged. The purpose of contempt proceeding is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its insulted form and purity.�Laxman Pd. Agarwal v. K.P. Singh 1991 Cr LJ 2834

14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court

(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall--

(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged.

(b) Afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;

(c) After taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and

(d) Make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some judge other than the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a judge other than the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case.

(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:

PROVIDED that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money as the court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the court:

PROVIDED FURTHER that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.

COMMENTS

The fact that the process is to summary does not means that the procedural requirement, viz. that an opportunity of meeting the charge is denied to the contemner. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated, depend, upon the circumstances so long as the gift of the specific allegation is made clear or otherwise the contemner is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always necessary to formulate the change is a specific allegation. Despite the objection that the judge deals with the contempt himself and the contemner has little opportunity to defend himself there is a residue case where not only it is justifiable to punish on the spot but it is the only realistic way of dealing with certain offender.

The judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must be able to take steps to restore as early and quickly as possible.In re Vinay Chandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584

The power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court being courts of record under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and that the jurisdiction vested is a special one and not derived from any other statute but derived only from arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution.Pritam Pal Singh v. High Court of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by:-

(a) the Advocate-General. Or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General (Inserted by Act 45 of 1976) [or]

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.]

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation: In this section, the expression Advocate-General means

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

COMMENTS

The whole object of prescribing procedural modes of taking cognizance in s. 15 is to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court and the Supreme Court being vested by frivolous complaints of contempt of court. Sec. 15(2) does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of a subordinate court on its own motion although apparently the section does not say so.�Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR SC 2176

Though the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court can be regulated by legislation by appropriate Legislature under Entry 77 of List 1 and 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971, the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court is given a constitutional foundation by declaring such courts, to be the �courts of records� under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution and there from the inherent power of the Supreme Court and High Court cannot be taken away by any legislation short of constitutional legislations.�Pritam Pal v. High Court 1992 Cr LJ 1269

16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observation or remarks made by a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate or other person against the order or judgment of the subordinate court.

COMMENTS

The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control for the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified or scathing criticism of Counsel, parties or witnesses. The court has the inherent power to act truly upon its own convictions on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principal of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authority whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary.�A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta 1990 (2) SCC 533

17. Procedure after cognizance

(1) Notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise.

(2) The notice shall be accompanied�

(a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded; and

(b) in case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference.

(3) The court may, if it is satisfied that a person charged under section 15 is likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the attachment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable.

(4) Every attachment under sub-section (3) shall be effected in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (See Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), for the attachment of property in execution of a decree for payment of a money, and if, after such attachment, the person charged appears and shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, the court shall order the release of his property from attachment upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit.

(5) Any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in support of the defence, and the court may determine the matter of the charge either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires.

COMMENTS

It is not open to any contemner to take the plea that truth of the allegation is a justification.�Advocate General v. Rachapudi Subba Rao 1991 Cr LJ 613

The contemner is not entitled to adduce evidence in jurisdiction of his conduct.�V.M. Kanade v. Mahav Gadkari 1990 Cr LJ 190

The contempt proceedings are not criminal proceeding but are proceedings of a summary nature and the courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such proceedings and accordingly extend the normal rules of procedure in contempt cases so as to act fairly and judiciously.�Vidaya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association 1991 Cr LJ 2722

18. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches

(1) Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two judges.

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.

19. Appeals

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt--

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not les than two judges of the court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:

PROVIDED that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate court may order that--

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed--

(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;

(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

COMMENTS

The right of appeal is available under sub-s. 1 of s. 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred upon it by art. 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt when the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemner, it does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under art. 215 of the Constitution.�D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal 1988 (3) SCC 26

Contempt proceedings relate to special jurisdiction, so such power to recall or reviewed can be exercised by invoking ss. 362 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure�State of U.P. v. Baldev 1992 Cr LJ 1251

20. Limitation for actions for contempt

No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

COMMENTS

Sec. 20 has no application where the contempt is a continuing wrong.�Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram AIR 1989 SC 2285

Sec. 20 does not derogate from the power vested in every High Court under art. 215 of the Constitution.�High Court of Karnataka v. Y.K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ 1159

21. Act not to apply to Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts

Nothing contained in this Act shall apply in relation to contempt of Nyaya Panchayats or other villages courts, by whatever name known, for the administration of justice, established under any law.

22. Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to contempt

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts.

COMMENTS

The expression �not in derogation of� is intended to mean that substantive powers of contempt cannot be abrogated by the Act.�High Court of Karnataka v. Y.K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ 1159

23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules

The Supreme Court or, as may be, any High Court may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.

24. Repeal

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952). Is hereby repealed.

RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF SUPREME COURT, 1975

GSR 142�In exercise of the powers under section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Supreme Court hereby makes, with the approval of the President, the following rules:

1. (1) These Rules may be called the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the fficial Gazette (Published in the Gazette of India, dtd. 1-2-1975 and came into force from the date).

PART I

2. (1) Where contempt is committed in view or presence or hearing of the Court, the contemner may be punished by the Court before which it is committed either forthwith or on such date as may be appointed by the Court in that behalf.

(2) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that the contemner shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:

PROVIDED that the contemner may released on bail on such terms as the Court may direct.

PART II

3. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in rule 2, the Court may take action:

(a) suo motu, or

(b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, of

(c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General

4. (a) Every petition under rule 3(b) or (c) shall contain:-

(i) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the persons charged;

(i) nature of the contempt alleged and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case;

(ii) if a petition has previously been made by him on the same facts, the petitioner shall give the details of the petition previously made and shall also indicate the result thereof;

(b) The petition shall be supported by an affidavit.

(c) Whether the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof with the petition.

(d)