Critically evaluate whether statutory limits under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can restrict the inherent contempt jurisdiction of constitutional courts.

Articles 129 and 215 make the Supreme Court and the High Courts courts of record with power to punish contempt of themselves. This power comes from the Constitution and exists independently of the 1971 Act [2]. So the real question is whether Parliament can regulate the power, not whether it can abolish it.

Statutory limits that do bind constitutional courts

• Limitation: In Pallav Sheth v. Custodian (2001), the SC read the one-year bar in Sec. 20 together with Art. 215 so that neither cancels the other. It held that the contempt power must be exercised "in consonance with a validly enacted law" [3].
• Threshold: Sec. 13 bars punishment unless the act substantially interferes with justice. It also allows truth as a defence where it is in the public interest and raised in good faith [1].
• Fair procedure: Sec. 14(2) lets a person accused of contempt in court ask to be tried by a different judge. Sec. 15 sets out who can start criminal contempt proceedings [1].
• Punishment cap: Sec. 12 limits punishment to 6 months' simple imprisonment and/or a ₹2,000 fine. The court may let the person off if it accepts their apology [1].
• Other statutes: In SCBA v. Union of India (1998), the SC held that Art. 129 cannot be used to suspend an advocate's licence. That power belongs to the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act [4].

Limits statute cannot impose

• No abrogation: Pallav Sheth held that any law which stultifies or abrogates Arts. 129/215 would not be validly enacted [3]. Sec. 22 itself says the Act adds to the existing law of contempt and does not take away from it [1].
• Constitutional source: The Law Commission's 274th Report (2018) said that amending the Act would not remove the courts' constitutional powers [2].

Critical assessment

• Courts decide their own limits: The court decides when the Act binds it, so it acts as judge in its own cause. For example, the Karnataka HC started suo motu contempt proceedings over a ruckus in the Chief Justice's court hall, and the Bench hearing the case includes the Chief Justice [5].
• Weak deterrence: The ₹2,000 cap has not changed since 1971, yet the Law Commission advised against amending the Act [2].

Overall, statute can shape how the power is used (time limits, threshold, procedure and penalty) but not whether it exists. Going forward, courts should keep reading the Act and the Constitution together. They should also routinely use fair-trial safeguards such as Sec. 14(2) and keep contempt within Art. 19(2). This protects both the authority of courts and the rule of law.