LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF

COURT ACT
AMIT ANAND

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SCHOOL OF LAW, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

PHD (LAW), LANCASTER UNIVERSITY, UK

 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

• Contempt of Court Act, 1971: evolution, object and constitutional validity.

• Definition

• Kinds of Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers and other persons

• Procedure to take cognizance

• Defences under contempt of court

• Appellate provisions regarding contempt defences

• Punishment for contempt and remedies against punishment

 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

1. Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Introduction

• The contempt of Courts is a serious matter as it undermines the authority of the Court and impairs the
public faith and confidence in the judicial administration and majesty of law, which is an important sine
qua non for the existence of an orderly society.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
• Contempt petition against Prashant Bhushan

• Kinds of contempt of Courts: insult to judges, attacking them, comments on pending proceeding with a
tendency to prejudice trial, obstruction to officers of Courts, witness or parties, abusing the process of
Court, breach of duty by officers of the Courts and scandalizing judges or Courts.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Contempt Law in England and India

• In England, the Senior Courts have inherent powers to punish the contempt itself and also the Court
subordinate to it.

• In England, the law on contempt is partly set out in case law (common law), and partly codified by
the Contempt of Court Act, 1981.
• The 1981 Act does not define ‘contempt’, nor it states whether it applies to civil as well as criminal
contempt. – Whitter v. Peters, (1969) 3 All ER 1062
• The strict liability rule - means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as
tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Contempt Law in England and India

• The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes
any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public
at large or any section of the public.
• Charter of 1687 issued by the East India Company sets up the Mayor’s Court of Madras as a Court of
Record. Mayor’s Court of Madras continued till 1797 after which the Mayor’s Court of Madras and
Bombay were superseded by the Recorder’s Court. The Recorder’s Court was a Court of Record and had
power to punish for contempt.

• British Parliament passed an Act in 1800 – Establishing a Supreme Court of Madras in place of
Recorder’s Court. Supreme Court of Madras functioned till the High Court of Madras was established.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1926

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1952

• A Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1960 to amend the law relating to Contempt of Court which
resulted in a committee being constituted under the Chairmanship of the Additional Solicitor General of
India Shri H.N. Sanyal.
• Sanyal Committee Recommendations and Reforms to Contempt of Courts Act, 1952: Defining ‘Contempt
of Court’; Procedure for contempt proceedings
• Committee submitted its report in 1963 which led to modifications in the earlier Bill in the Lok Sabha.

• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted repealing the 1952 Act.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Constitutional Provisions and Contempt of Court

• Article 215, Constitution of India - 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.

• R. L. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 858 – The SC emphasised that the High Court as a
Court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction, which is a special one, not arising or derived
from Contempt of Courts Act. No law made by the legislature could take away the jurisdiction conferred
on the High Court nor it could confer in afresh by virtue of its own authority.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Constitutional Provisions and Contempt of Court
• Article 129, Constitution of India - 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.
• Delhi Judicial Service Officers Association, Tishazari Court and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Others, AIR 1991 SC 2176 – While construing Art. 129, it is not permissible to ignore the significance &
impact of the inclusive power conferred on the Supreme Court by the founding fathers of the Constitution.
• Court of Record: “Whenever a power is given to examine, hear and punish it is a judicial power, and
they in whom it is reposed act as judges and wherever there is jurisdiction erected with power to fine and
imprison, that is a Court of Record and what is done there is a matter of record” – Holt C.J.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Constitutional Provisions and Contempt of Court

• The Contempt of Court is covered by entry 77 of Union List, entry 14 of Concurrent List + Article
142(2).

• Entry 77 List I: Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including
contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court.
• Entry 14 List III: Contempt of court, but not including contempt of the Supreme Court.

• Article 142(2): Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme
Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for
the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or
the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

➢ Constitutional Provisions and Contempt of Court

• Contempt of Courts Act not violative of Article 14 (Equality) and 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and
Expression)

• Article 14 - Sher Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1968 Punj. 217: Protection of public confidence in the
system of administration of justice is the objective of the Act and therefore the Act is not violative of
Article 14.

• Article 19(1)(a) – Does the Contempt law violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
experience?
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Concept of Contempt of Courts, Its Origin and Constitutional Validity

• While fair and temperate criticism of the Supreme Court or any other Court even if strong, may not be
actionable, attributing improper motives, or tending to bring judges, or courts into hatred and contempt
or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of courts is serious contempt of which notice
must and will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom it is repugnant. Those who err in
their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of courts, administration of justice and the
instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril –
Hidayatullah C.J. in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318
• In Re: P.C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821

• C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132

 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

2. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• What is ‘Contempt of Court’?

• It is very difficult to define the concept of ‘Contempt of Court’. What would offend the dignity of the
court and lower the court’s prestige is a matter for the court to determine and it cannot be confined within
the four walls of a definition – State of Bihar v. Kuber Nand Kishore Singh, 1986 PLR 933.
• The Sanyal Committee in its report on the 1952 Act concluded that the concept of ‘Contempt of Court’
cannot be defined except by enumerating the Heads under which it may be classified. These heads can
never be exhaustive.
• Section 2(a): “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Section 2 (b) “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;

• Section 2 (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which—

• (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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;
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Section 2(b) ‘Civil Contempt’ – The purpose of the proceedings for civil contempt is not only to punish
the contemner but also to exercise the enforcement and obedience to the order of the court.

• What constitutes wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree…

• Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others, (2003) 11 SCC 1 – ‘Wilful’ means an act
or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something
that the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done. It
signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to
constitute contempt, the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by
the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should
be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This
has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 569 – For holding the
respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been
wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted
to when there is clear violation of the court’s order.
• Advocate General, Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries and another, AIR 1980 SC 946 – Every abuse of
the process of the court may not necessarily amount to contempt of court.

• Harshibshnor v. Hasim Ali, 1988 CriLJ 1234

• Aligarh Muslim Board v. Ekta Tonga Mazdoor Union, AIR 1970 SC 1767
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• State v. Nagamoni, AIR 1959 Pat 373 – One of the judges of the Patna High Court visited the criminal
courts in the District of Saran of which the contemner was the District Magistrate. The Judge presented an
inspection note to the High Court containing certain comments on the working of the criminal courts as
also pointing out certain defects. A copy of the report was sent to the District Magistrate for necessary
action. The District Magistrate sent a reply to the Registrar of the High Court, Patna wherein the
following words and expressions were used: “I am surprised to find, etc…as distorted version based
probably on statements made by some interested parties…has jumped to certain
conclusions…absurd…
• It was held that the comments of the District Judge amounted to obstruction of the course of justice and
cast reflection upon the dignity of the court and constituted contempt.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• E.M.S. Namboodripad v. T.N. Nambiar, AIR 1970 SC 2015 – the then CM of Kerala, Mr.
Namboodripad made a speech at a press conference which was published in a newspaper, wherein it was
reported to have said that: “The judges are guided and dominated by class interests, class hatred, and
class prejudices and where evidence is balanced between a well-dressed pot bellied rich man and a poor
ill dressed and illiterate person, the judge instinctively favoured the former.”
• SC observed – To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression, the judges as guided and dominated
by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices instinctively favouring the rich against the poor, is to
draw a very distorted and poor picture of the judiciary. It is clear that it is an attack on judges which is
calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of all judicial
decisions.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

➢ Contempt Proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code

• (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or
breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the
injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the
property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such
person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the
Court directs his release.

• (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which
time if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds,
the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if
any, to the party entitled thereto.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

➢ Contempt Proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code

• Delhi Judicial Service Officers Association, Tishazari Court and Others v. State of Gujarat and
Others, AIR 1991 SC 2176 – Ordinarily, a person complaining about disobedience or breach of an
injunction order passed by a civil court should resort to the remedy under Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC
rather than filing a petition in High Court under provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Section 2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which—

• (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
• (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
• (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in
any other manner
• 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. [Delhi
Judicial Service Officers Association, Tishazari Court and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others]
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Scandalize means the defamatory, derogatory, false, malicious, disgraceful statements regarding the
persons as judges. If a publication contains something which is impertinent or, and is reproachful or
derogates from the dignity of the courts or irrelevant allegations which is scandalous, it is termed as
scandalizing of the court, or tends to scandalize the authority of the court.
• In re Ajay Kumar Pandey, AIR 1997 SC 260 – The contemner (A.K. Pandey, advocate) filed a criminal
complaint against Mr. Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, Addl. District Judge, Lucknow alleging
that they had imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala which had defamed the
contemner. The contemner filed complaint against several other advocates alleging that they had made
similar imputations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala.

• The Supreme Court passed the following order on all matters relating to this case:
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• “In all these petitions, we find that attack is indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language is
used against the named judges at various places in each one of the petitions. The petitioner, who is an
advocate, has permitted himself liberty of using such expressions which prima facie tend to scandalize
the court in relation to judicial matters and thus, have tendency to interfere with the administration of
justice.”
• The Apex Court initiated contempt proceeding against A.K. Pandey as he failed to delete all objectionable
expressions used in the petitions. The contemner moved an application for review of the contempt order
but the application was rejected. He later filed a contempt petition against the Judges of the Supreme
Court who issued the contempt notice which was also rejected. The Contemner sent a copy of his
application for review of the contempt order to the President of India asking to prosecute the said Judges
of the Supreme Court. He also threatened to go on hunger strike.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• The Supreme Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case found the contemner to be
guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. On serving the
sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence was to stand suspended for a period of two years and
might be activated in case the contemner was convicted of another offence of contempt of court during the
two years period.
• interferes or tends to interfere – In a particular case, contempt proceedings were initiated against an Ex-
MLA by the Magistrate on the ground that the former visited the house of the latter for seeking favour and
influencing his mind by virtue of his status. [1970 Cr. L.J. 942 (Pb)].

• An act of criminal contempt will be tested on the potentiality for scandalizing or lowering the authority of
any court or interfering or tending to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Kinds of Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers and other persons

• Section 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 observations or remarks made by a judge, magistrate or other
person acting judicially, regarding a subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such judge,
magistrate or other person against the order or judgment of the subordinate court.

• Whether a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court comes under the scope of Sec. 16?
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Kinds of Contempt by Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers and other persons

• Harish Chandra v. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, AIR 1986 Pat. 65 – It was argued that in view of Sec. 16(1)
even a judge of a High Court or of the Supreme Court can be held liable for having committed
contempt of his own court. The High Court did not accept this argument.
• “It is essential in all courts that the judges who are appointed to administer the law should be permitted to
administer the law under the protection of the law independently and freely, without favour and fear.” -
Scott v. Stansfield, (1868) LR 3 200
• The power of the Supreme Court and the High Courts being the Courts of Records cannot be
restricted by any ordinary legislation including the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure to take cognizance

• Section 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, 1[or]

• 1[(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.]
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure to take cognizance

• Section 15:
• (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.

• Section 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.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure to take cognizance

• S. Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Misra, AIR 1981 SC 723 –
Section 15 prescribed procedure for taking cognizance and it does not affect the High Court’s suo moto
power to take cognizance and punish for contempt of subordinate courts.
• Mohammad Shafi, Advocate v. Choudhary Qadir Baksh, AIR 1949 Lah. 270 – Counsel for the party
pleaded in Court of magistrate, Ist Class, Lahore that his client had obtained an interim injunction in the
Sub-Judge’s Court against the petitioner from prosecuting the proceedings till the suit is disposed.
Hearing this the Magistrate lost his temper and said: “This is a foolish order passed by a foolish Sub-
Judge in a suit filed by a foolish lawyer. From where have you come? What is your standing? You
seem to know nothing of law. You are instrumental in procuring the foolish order and as such you
have committed a crime for which you could be sent behind bars.”
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure to take cognizance

• The Magistrate further told the counsel in a furious tone that he wanted to teach him a lesson so that he
could be careful in future and that he was playing with fire and its consequence is obvious.

• The remarks of the Magistrate amounted to contempt of court not only against the Sub-Judge but also
against the counsel/lawyer, who is an officer of the court. The High Court observed:
• “If abuse of witness is regarded as contempt of court on the ground that it would intimidate other
witnesses and thus impede the course of justice. The intimidation of a lawyer who is representing
one of the parties is also contempt as it would interfere with the administration of justice. No Judge
or Magistrate has any business to loose his temper in a court of law, get up from his chair and make
contemptuous remarks about other judges or counsel appearing on either side.”
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure to take cognizance

• Section 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.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Procedure after cognizance

• Section 17: Procedure after cognizance - (1) Notice of every proceeding under section l5 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.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Defences under Contempt of Court

❖ Defences in Civil Contempt: A person charged with civil contempt of court can take the following
defences -

➢ No knowledge of order
• The general principle is that a person cannot be held guilty of contempt in respect of an order of which he
claims to be unaware. Law casts a duty upon a successful party to serve the certified copy of the order on
the other side either personally or by registered speed post. Notwithstanding the fact that the order has
been passed in presence of both the parties or their counsels.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

➢ Disobedience or breach was not wilful

• It can be pleaded that although disobedience or breach of the order has taken place but it was due to
accidental, administrative or other reasons beyond the control of the party concerned. This plea can be
successful only when a reasonable explanation has been given for non-compliance.
➢ Order disobeyed is vague or ambiguous
• If the order passed by court is vague or ambiguous or its not specific or complete, it would be a defence in
the contempt or alleged contemnor can raise a plea in defence that the order whose contempt is alleged
cannot be complied with as the same is impossible.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1990 SCC (4) 557 - The Supreme Court clarified the legal
position by holding that where the order is incomplete and ambiguous, the parties should approach the
original court and get the order clarified by getting the ambiguity removed.

➢ Order involves more than one reasonable interpretation

• If the order whose contempt is alleged involves more than one reasonable and rational interpretation and
the respondent adopts one of them and acts in accordance with one such interpretation, he cannot be held
liable for contempt of court. However, this defence is available only when a bonafide question of
interpretation arises.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

➢ Compliance of the order is impossible

• In proceedings for civil contempt, it would be a valid defence that the compliance of the order is
impossible. However, the cases of impossibility must be distinguished from the cases of mere difficulty.

• Amar Singh v. K.P. Geetakrishnan, 1992 High Court of Punjab and Haryana - The court granted certain
pension benefits to a large number of retired employees with effect from a particular back date. The plea
of impossibility was taken on the ground that the implementation of the order would result in heavy
financial burden on the exchequer. However, the plea of impossibility was rejected by the court with the
observation that although it’s difficult to comply with the order but it’s not impossible to comply and
therefore, it should be complied with.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

➢ The order has been passed without jurisdiction

• 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.

• Krishna Devi Malchand v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363 - The Supreme
Court clarified the legal position and held that if the order is void, it cannot be ignored by the party
aggrieved by it. If the litigating party feels that the order has been passed by a court which had no
jurisdiction to pass it, he should approach the same court for seeking such declaration by moving an
application for recall of the order.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

❖ Defences in Criminal Contempt: Sections 3 to 7 of the Act provide the defences to the person charged
with criminal contempt.

• Section 3: Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt – In re Motilal Ghosh, AIR
1918 Cal. 988 - a newspaper published scandalizing the High Court of Calcutta and the Chief Justice by
allegations implying that the Chief Justice had constituted a ‘favourable’ bench for the appellant. It was
held that the articles constituted contempt of court.

• Section 4: Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt – Are ‘media trials’
contemptuous?
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

❖ Defences in Criminal Contempt: Sections 3 to 7 of the Act provide the defences to the person charged
with criminal contempt.

• Section 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.
• Padmahasini v. C.R. Srinivas, Cr. L.J., 2000, 187 (SC) – allegations against a Supreme court judge that
he had “thwarted justice, flouted law, denigrated the face of judiciary and ridiculed the sanctity of the
mandatory provisions and established dictates of law” attributed by implication ulterior motive to judge. It
is beyond permissible limits of fair criticism. Fair criticism means criticism which while criticizing act of
judges does not impute any ulterior motives to the learned judge.
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

❖ Defences in Criminal Contempt: Sections 3 to 7 of the Act provide the defences to the person charged
with criminal contempt.

• Section 6: Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt

• Section 7: Publication of Information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera not

contempt except in certain cases
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

❖ Punishment for Contempt

• Section 12: Punishment for Contempt of Court

• Section 13: Contempts not punishable in certain cases

❖ Remedies Against the Punishment for the Contempt of Court

• Apology

• Appeal
• Review
 MODULE: LAW RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

❖ Remedies Against the Punishment for the Contempt of Court

• Apology: Mulakh Raj v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197 – “If apology is offered at a time
when the contemner finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it
becomes an act of a cringing coward”. In this case the appellant had used offensive language casting
aspersions on the judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and thereby lowered the esteem of the
judiciary. The High Court did not take notice of the appellants expression of apology.