Contempt of Court: Meaning, Kinds, Defences & Landmark Case Laws

---

A strong judicial system is essential for any constitutional democracy. Courts must be able to function freely, independently, and without fear. To protect this independence and ensure public confidence in the administration of justice, Indian law recognises the concept of Contempt of Court. Importantly, contempt is not meant to shield judges from criticism; it exists to protect the integrity of the justice-delivery process.

In India, the law of contempt is primarily governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, while Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to punish for contempt.

What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of Court refers to any act that:

• lowers the authority of a court,
• obstructs judicial proceedings, or
• interferes with the administration of justice.

The classic explanation comes from Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953).

Ratio:

The Supreme Court held that contempt powers exist not to protect the prestige of judges personally, but to ensure that public confidence in the administration of justice is not eroded.

Kinds of Contempt: Civil and Criminal

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 classifies contempt into two categories:

1. Civil Contempt

Definition (Section 2(b)):
Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, direction, writ, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Key Ingredients

• The court’s order must be clear and unambiguous.
• Disobedience must be wilful.
• The contemnor must have had the capacity to comply.

Landmark Cases

a) Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1994)

In the context of the Ayodhya dispute, individuals were punished for wilfully violating Supreme Court orders.
Ratio: Even interim orders of the Court must be obeyed; their breach undermines the rule of law.

b) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot (2006)

Authorities who failed to follow the Court’s environmental orders were proceeded against for contempt.
Ratio: Wilful disregard of binding directions amounts to gross contempt because it paralyzes judicial oversight.

c) Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (2007)

Ratio: An undertaking given to a court is equivalent to a court order—its breach constitutes civil contempt.

The case also discussed whether appeals lie against contempt orders under Section 19 of the Act. So while breach of undertaking is contempt, the judgment is equally significant for clarifying appellate remedies.

2. Criminal Contempt

Definition (Section 2(c)):
Publication or any act that:

1. scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of the court,
2. prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or
3. obstructs the administration of justice.

Criminal contempt has a wider scope as it focuses on protecting public faith in the judiciary.

A. Scandalising the Court

“Scandalising” includes allegations or statements that lower the authority, dignity, or integrity of the judiciary.

Landmark Cases

1. In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002)

The contemnor was punished for statements seen as lowering the authority of the Court.
Ratio: Freedom of speech cannot extend to undermining the judicial institution.

2. P.N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar (1988)

The Court distinguished healthy criticism from contempt.
Ratio: Fair criticism of judicial functioning is permissible; contempt arises only when the attack is malicious and calculated to erode public confidence.

3. In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020)

Tweets allegedly scandalising the judiciary led to contempt proceedings.
Ratio: In the age of social media, public statements that may shake people’s confidence in the judiciary can attract contempt.

B. Interference with Judicial Proceedings

Landmark Case: Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)

A Chief Judicial Magistrate was assaulted by police officials.
Ratio: Any act that intimidates or interferes with judicial officers obstructs justice and constitutes serious criminal contempt.

C. Obstruction in the Administration of Justice

Landmark Case: In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995)

An advocate misbehaved inside the courtroom.
Ratio: Officers of the court, especially lawyers, must maintain decorum—misconduct that disrupts proceedings is criminal contempt.

The Court in this case suspended the advocate’s right to practice. However, in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court later clarified that contempt powers do not extend to suspending an advocate’s licence to practice. Thus, Mishra remains important for defining misconduct as contempt, but its disciplinary aspect was limited.

Free Speech vs. Contempt: Balancing the Two

A recurring constitutional question is: How far can one criticise judges?

Indian law recognises the value of free expression but imposes boundaries where criticism:

• becomes malicious,
• imputes improper motives without basis, or
• harms public confidence in the judiciary.

Three guiding principles emerge:

1. Fair criticism is allowed
   (P.N. Duda — protects democratic debate).
2. Truth is a defence if made bonafide and in public interest
   (introduced through the 2006 amendment).
3. The Court will punish only if the act substantially interferes with justice.

This modern standard narrows the scope of contempt and prevents misuse.

Defences in Contempt Cases

1. Truth (Section 13)

Truth may be a valid defence if:

• invoked in public interest, and
• made in good faith.

2. Lack of wilfulness

In civil contempt, genuine inability or absence of intention can absolve liability.

3. Fair and reasonable criticism

Criticism of judgments is permissible if it is academic, constructive, and not motivated by malice.

Punishment for Contempt

Under Section 12:

• Simple imprisonment up to 6 months,
• Fine up to ₹2,000,
• Or both.

Courts exercise discretion. In practice, imprisonment is rare; fines or acceptance of unconditional apologies are more common. The emphasis is corrective, not punitive.

Debate on Reform

Many democracies have diluted or abolished the offence of “scandalising the court.”
In India, the 2006 amendment was the first step in narrowing contempt powers.
The Prashant Bhushan case revived public debate on whether India must revisit the definition of criminal contempt, particularly in the context of social media.

Still, the Supreme Court maintains that until reforms are made, contempt powers remain essential to preserve judicial independence.

Quick FAQs

1. Can I criticise judges or judgments?

Yes—fair, reasoned, academic criticism is permitted. Avoid imputing motives or attacking the institution.

2. Is disobedience of court orders always contempt?

Only if it is wilful. Genuine inability is a valid defence.

3. Does an apology end contempt liability?

If sincere and unconditional, courts often accept it.

4. Does social media criticism count as contempt?

Yes, if it tends to lower the authority of the Court.

Conclusion

Contempt of Court remains a crucial tool to protect the authority of the judiciary and uphold the rule of law. Yet, the judicial approach has evolved toward greater tolerance of fair criticism, recognising the democratic value of dissent. Ultimately, the law of contempt seeks to maintain a delicate balance—protecting justice without stifling free speech.

---

📚 References

1. Constitution of India, Articles 129 and 215
2. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
3. Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10
4. P.N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar, (1988) 3 SCC 167
5. In Re: Arundhati Roy, (2002) 3 SCC 343
6. Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 442
7. Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406

#ContemptOfCourt #IndianJudiciary #LegalAwareness #CivilContempt #CriminalContempt #SupremeCourtJudgments #ConstitutionalLaw #RuleOfLaw #JudicialAccountability #LegalBlog #LawStudents #IndianLaw #JusticeSystem #CaseLawAnalysis #LegalResearch #DrGaneshVisavale