In India, the offence of contempt of court is committed when a person either disobeys a court order (civil contempt), or when a person says or does anything that scandalizes, prejudices, or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice (criminal contempt). Contempt of court can be punished with imprisonment or a fine, or both.
History and legislation
The offence of contempt of courts was established in common law, and can also be traced to colonial legislation, with the earliest recorded penalties contained in the Regulating Act of 1773, which stated that the newly formed Mayor's Court of Calcutta would have the same powers as a court of the English King's Bench to punish persons for contempt. Courts established in India under colonial rule followed the common law principle that all 'courts of record' had the inherent power to punish for contempt. High Courts established in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras as courts of record subsequently exercised the power of contempt to penalise persons for interfering with the administration of justice.
The Contempt of Courts Act 1926 was enacted to resolve a conflict of opinions between High Courts in India on whether they had the power to penalise offences of contempt committed against other, subordinate courts that fell under their jurisdiction. The 1926 Act specifically affirmed this power, and allowed the High Courts to penalise contempt against subordinate courts as well as against their own judgments and proceedings. In 1952, the Contempt of Courts Act was replaced by a new legislation of the same name, which expanded the power to punish for contempt from High Courts to other courts as well.
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, specifically established the Supreme Court of India as well as High Courts in the states of India as courts of record with the power to punish for acts of contempt. Contempt of court is also a ground on which the right to freedom of speech in India can be restricted.
In 1961, a committee headed by H.N. Sanyal, an Additional Solicitor General for the Government of India, was appointed to examine the application of contempt laws in India. The Sanyal Committee recommended that contempt proceedings should be initiated not by the courts themselves, but on the recommendation of a law officer of the government. These recommendations were incorporated in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, enacted by the Parliament of India, which is the current legislation governing contempt of courts in India. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines civil and criminal contempt, and lays down the powers and procedures by which courts can penalise contempt, as well as the penalties that can be given for the offence of contempt. The Act was amended in 2006, to limit the power of courts to punish for contempt, only when such contempt "interfered with the due course of justice," and to allow truth as a defense to contempt.
Commission of contempt of court
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 categorises the offence of contempt into civil and criminal contempt. The Act specifies that High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have the power to try and punish the offence of contempt, and High Courts have the power to punish acts of contempt against courts subordinate to them; however, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that any court of record has the inherent power to punish for contempt. In addition to these courts, certain administrative tribunals also have been given the power to punish for contempt, in their governing statutes.
Civil Contempt
Civil contempt, defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, is "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
Criminal contempt, defined in Section 2(c), is committed when anything is published, or done, which "scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court", or "prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding," or "interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." The offence of criminal contempt has been held to cover false statements made to or about the judiciary, coercion and attempts to pervert judicial proceedings by attacking witnesses, parties, or judges, recording court proceedings without permission from the court, obstructing officers of the court from performing their functions, as well as verbal abuse and accusations of incompetence or bias against judges.