Contempt of court

Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

Contempt of court means disobeying a court's order on purpose (civil contempt), or saying, publishing or doing something that lowers a court's authority, interferes with a pending case or blocks the course of justice (criminal contempt). The Supreme Court (Article 129) and the High Courts (Article 215) can punish it.

It matters because courts have no army and no budget of their own. Their orders work only if people obey them and trust them. The same power also limits free speech, so where fair criticism ends and contempt begins is a live debate.

Explanation

Where the power comes from: the "court of record"

• Court of record means a court whose judgments are kept forever as official records.
• Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record.

• Article 215 makes every High Court a court of record.

• A court of record has two powers:

• Evidentiary value. Its records count as proof, and no other court can question them. Lawyers can cite them as precedent (an earlier decision that guides later cases).

• Power to punish contempt of itself. Both articles say this in so many words.

• The power comes from the Constitution, not from a law.

• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not create the power. It only sets out how the power is used.

• So even if Parliament cut down the Act, the courts would keep their contempt power [2].

• Article 142(2): the Supreme Court's power to punish contempt is subject to any law Parliament makes.

Two types: civil and criminal contempt

• Civil contempt (s. 2(b) of the 1971 Act): wilful (deliberate) disobedience of a court's judgment, decree, direction, order or writ.

• Wilfully breaking an undertaking (a formal promise made to the court) also counts.

• Criminal contempt (s. 2(c)): publishing anything, or doing any act, that:

• scandalises the court or lowers its authority, meaning it reduces public trust in judges;
• prejudices or interferes with a pending case; or
• obstructs the administration of justice in any other way.

Feature	Civil contempt	Criminal contempt
Nature	Private wrong: someone disobeys an order	Public wrong: harm to the court's authority
Typical act	Not obeying a decree; breaking an undertaking	Scandalising the court; interfering with a trial
Main purpose	Making sure orders are carried out	Protecting the court's dignity and fair trials

Procedure for criminal contempt (s. 15 and s. 20)

1. Starting the case. Only three routes are allowed: - The court acts on its own, suo motu (without anyone filing a case) [4]. - The Advocate-General files it. For the Supreme Court, this means the Attorney General or the Solicitor General [4]. - Any other person files it, but only with the written consent of the Advocate-General. For the Supreme Court, the consent must come from the AG or SG [4].

2. Time limit (s. 20). The case must begin within one year of the alleged contempt. After that, no case can start.

3. Outcome. The court either punishes the contemnor (the person found in contempt) under s. 12, or discharges them, for example after a sincere apology.

Punishment, defences and limits

• Punishment (s. 12): up to 6 months' simple imprisonment, or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both.
• Apology: a sincere (bona fide) apology can end the case.
• The court may discharge the contemnor or reduce the punishment.

• A tactical apology made only to escape punishment is not enough.

• "Substantial interference" test (s. 13(a), since 2006): no court may punish unless the contempt substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice [3]. So small slights go unpunished.

• Defences built into the Act:
• Innocent publication (s. 3): the publisher did not know, and had no reason to know, that a case was pending.
• Fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings (s. 4).
• Fair criticism of a case after it has been decided (s. 5).
• Truth as a defence (s. 13(b)): the court may accept justification by truth if the truth serves the public interest and the person raises the defence honestly (bona fide) [3].

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base:
• Art. 129 for the Supreme Court and Art. 215 for the High Courts. Each is a court of record with power to punish contempt of itself.
• Art. 142(2): the Supreme Court's contempt power is subject to law made by Parliament.

• Art. 19(2): contempt of court is one of the listed grounds for "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech under Art. 19(1)(a).

• The law:

• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) is based on the H.N. Sanyal Committee (1963) [4].

• It was changed by the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No. 6 of 2006, dated 17 March 2006), which added the truth defence and the "substantial interference" test [3].

• NCERT framing (Class 11, "Judiciary"):

• The contempt power is part of judicial independence. It shields judges from unfair attacks so they can decide without fear.

• The chapter asks: why may we criticise the Prime Minister but not judges?

• How far the power reaches:

• Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991): the Supreme Court can punish contempt of subordinate (lower) courts too, because it is the guardian of the whole judiciary.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): the Court cannot suspend an advocate's licence through contempt. Only the Bar Councils can do that, under the Advocates Act, 1961. Art. 142 cannot override an express law.

• The 1971 Act also lets High Courts punish contempt of the lower courts below them [2].

• Landmark instances:

• E.M.S. Namboodiripad (1970): the Kerala Chief Minister called the judiciary an "instrument of class oppression". He was held guilty. Criticism that brings the whole judiciary into contempt is not protected.
• Arundhati Roy (2002): she was held guilty over remarks about the Court in the Narmada dam dispute. She got a symbolic one-day jail term and a ₹2,000 fine.
• Justice C.S. Karnan (2017): he became the first sitting High Court judge jailed for contempt. A seven-judge bench gave him six months.
• Prashant Bhushan (2020): he was held guilty over tweets about the CJI and the Court. He was fined a symbolic ₹1.

• Vijay Mallya: he was held guilty in 2017 of civil contempt for breaking court orders in a bank-loan case, and sentenced in 2022.

• Scale: in 2018, 96,993 civil and 583 criminal contempt cases were pending in the High Courts and Supreme Court [2]. Most contempt cases are about disobeyed orders, often by governments and officials, not about speech.

• Reform reviews:
• NCRWC (2002–03, chaired by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah): amending the Act alone is not enough, because Arts. 129 and 215 already give the power [5].
  • It proposed a proviso to Art. 129: only the Supreme Court and High Courts should hold the contempt power, not tribunals [5].
  • It proposed truth as a safeguard, as a proviso to Art. 19(2) [5].
• Law Commission, 274th Report (April 2018, chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan): it advised no change to the 1971 Act and kept "scandalising the court" [2].
• England and Wales abolished the offence of scandalising the court in 2013.

Don't confuse with

• Civil vs criminal contempt: civil contempt is disobeying an order (a private wrong). Criminal contempt is harming the court's authority or a trial, for example by scandalising (a public wrong).
• Constitutional contempt power vs Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: the power comes from Arts. 129 and 215. The Act only sets the procedure and limits, so repealing it would not end the power [2].
• Fair criticism vs scandalising the court: fair criticism of a decided case is a defence under s. 5. An attack on a judge's motives or on the judiciary as a whole can be contempt, as in Namboodiripad (1970).
• Contempt power vs Bar Council's disciplinary power: the Court can punish an advocate for contempt. But only Bar Councils can suspend an advocate's licence (SCBA, 1998).

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 129 (Supreme Court) and Art. 215 (High Courts) make them courts of record with power to punish contempt of themselves. Art. 142(2) makes the Supreme Court's power subject to Parliament's law.
• Trap: contempt of court is a ground for restriction under Art. 19(2), not a part of Art. 19(1)(a). The power comes from the Constitution, not the 1971 Act [2].
• Punishment under s. 12: up to 6 months' simple imprisonment and/or a fine up to ₹2,000. A sincere apology can lead to discharge. The limitation period is one year (s. 20).
• 2006 Amendment (s. 13): added truth in the public interest, raised bona fide as a defence, and the rule that no one is punished unless the contempt substantially interferes with justice [3].
• Criminal contempt in the Supreme Court: a private person needs the written consent of the AG or SG (s. 15) [4].
• Case–principle pairs: Delhi Judicial Service Association (1991): the Supreme Court can punish contempt of lower courts. SCBA (1998): it cannot suspend an advocate's licence. Karnan (2017): first sitting HC judge jailed. Law Commission 274th Report (2018) kept "scandalising" even though the UK abolished it in 2013 [2].

Mains Points

• Independence vs free speech:
• For keeping "scandalising the court": judges cannot reply to attacks in public, and public trust is the judiciary's only real power.
• Against it:
  • It has a chilling effect (people stay silent out of fear, so even fair criticism stops).
  • "Scandalise" is vague.
  • Judges decide cases about themselves, which breaks the natural-justice rule that no one should judge their own cause.

• The UK abolished the offence in 2013. India's Law Commission kept it in 2018, citing the many pending criminal contempt cases, the UK's lack of any case since 1931, and the need to protect lower courts [2].

• Reform options:

• Limit criminal contempt to real interference with justice, using the s. 13 "substantial interference" test [3].
• Let a different bench hear contempt of a particular judge.
• Use truth as a defence more freely [3].

• Keep the power only with constitutional courts, not tribunals, as the NCRWC proposed [5].

• Civil contempt as an enforcement tool, and NCERT's PM question:

• With 96,993 civil contempt cases pending in 2018, mostly about governments ignoring orders, contempt is mainly about getting judgments obeyed, not about protecting judges' pride [2]. Any reform must keep this side strong.
• On why we may criticise the PM but not judges:
  • The PM answers to voters and Parliament. Judges do not, so their standing rests on public trust.
  • So the line should fall between fair criticism of a judgment (allowed) and attacks on a judge's motives (may be contempt). Speech should not be punished just because it is uncomfortable.

Related concepts

• Court of record
• Civil contempt
• Criminal contempt

Read more

• Court of record and the contempt power