Constitutional Validity of Contempt Law.

Introduction:

Contempt of court is a legal concept that refers to behaviors that

disrespect or obstruct the authority, dignity, or functioning of a
court of law. It can occur both inside and outside the courtroom.

 According to Halsbury, “Any act done or writing published which is

calculated to bring a Court or Judge into disrepute or lower his
authority or to interfere with the due course of justice or the Lawful
process of the Court is contempt of Court.”

 Direct contempt involves disruptive behavior within the courtroom,

such as being disrespectful to the judge or refusing to comply with
court orders. Indirect contempt occurs outside the courtroom and
typically involves disobeying court orders or interfering with the
administration of justice. Consequences for contempt can include
fines, imprisonment, or remedial actions to address the behavior.
The specific laws and procedures regarding contempt of court vary
between jurisdictions. It has always remained one of the most
debated topics in legal history and it is still debatable.

Origin of Concept:

Justice is the most important essential for a society. From ancient

time to modern times, in different forms of government or diversity
in people, Justice is the base for every society and its elements to
prevail.  Its importance is realized by great thinkers and
philosophers in their writings.

In ancient times, King had the sole responsibity for justice to his
subjects for justice. People of realm use to directly approach the
king, if they felt any injustice. But as the population grew and size
of society expanded, it became impossible for the king to solve all
problems personally. Therefore, King started appointing persons to
do this job on his behalf and with this, the Institution of Courts
came into existence. If the king neither be questioned nor
scandalized for their method of justice, then Courts also have no
ground to be questioned.

The concept of Contempt of Court was first acquired implications in

theological conations. They were subject of Ecclesiastical Courts of
Middle Ages when ethics and laws are treated to be at par. The
Origin of this concept can be found in early Common Law of
England. The concept of contempt of court emerged as a means to
protect the authority, dignity, and effectiveness of the courts. One of
the earliest recorded instances of contempt of court is found in the
14th-century legal treatise called “Mirror of Justices” (Speculum
Justiciariorum) written by Andrew Horne. It outlined the offense of
“scandalizing the court,” which involved making false or scandalous
statements about judges or their decisions with the intent to
undermine the authority of the court.

Origin in India:

In India, the concept originated from English Law. In England,

Superior Courts exercised the power to punish for offences of
Scandalizing courts and Disruption in justice. In India, the first law
regarding Contempt of Court was passed in 1926 and was referred
as ‘Contempt of Court Act, 1926’. After Independence, this act
was revisited by Indian Lawmakers and was passed as ‘Contempt
of Court Act, 1952’ with some changes. But still it did not define
‘Contempt of Court’ in absolute terms. So, this act was studied
again and with several changes ‘Contempt of Court, 1971’ Act
was passed, which is still use in present.

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971:

Indian legal fraternity was not satisfied with current laws of

Contempt of court i.e. Act of 1952. The main reason for it was the
term Contempt of court was not well defined in the previous act.
With the increasing cases of contempt, the law seems to uncertain
and unsatisfactory. So, to have a well-defined and structured act, a
committee was set up by Government on 29th July, 1961 under the
chairmanship of H.N. Sanyal, then additional Solicitor General. The
committee was appointed with the following tasks:

[i] Prepare draft of bill relating to Contempt of Court, Generally and

procedure for amendments, particularly.

[ii]Suggest Amendments and clarifying law

[iii] Suggest codification of law

In course of 2 years, Committee submitted the drafted bill along

with its report. The Bill was referred to Joint Select Committee of
Parliament. After detailed discussions and with few changes, the bill
was passed in 1971 by Parliament as ‘Contempt of Court Act, 1971’.
This act deals with the various forms of contempt and Punishment
for the same.  The Preamble of the act is read as “An Act to define
and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of
courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.” The Act
provides details of Classification of contempt, punishments and
procedure to be followed.

Civil and Criminal Contempt:

In the act, Contempt have been classified majorly under 2 domains:

[i] Civil [ii] Criminal

 Civil Contempt: According to section 2[b] of the act “civil

contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or
willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. It means
when an individual willingly disobey the court orders and
proceedings, he/she can be punished for civil wrong.

In this contempt, Court seeks remedy through force the person to

comply with the orders by putting on sanctions and fines.
Imprisonment is not much recommended in civil case. But if the
person still fails to comply with court, a maximum of 6 months
imprisonment can be granted.

 Criminal Contempt: It is well defined under Section 2[c] of

the act.

 (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.

It includes those offences which undermine the Majesty of Court or

bring disrespects to it. It also includes disrespect of a judicial officer
or of his post. It is of criminal nature. For this, the person can be
punished with imprisonment.

Objective:
The Objective of the act was:

[I] To regulate the procedure for imposition of appropriate

punishment within quantum fixed by law.

[ii] To ensure dignity of court so that obedience becomes a matter of

course

To protect machinery of justice and interest of people.

To uphold the dignity of courts. Unless the court is able to protect

its own dignity, it is a far cry that it could instill confidence of
common people in Majesty of Justice.

Its objective is not to protect the person who is a judicial officer,

personal comment and drawbacks of judicial officer can be
criticsed. Its objective is to protect the legacy and purity of the post
of judicial officer.

Other Organs like Legislature and executive have the power to

protect themselves from interruption or critizing and public arrest.
But Judiciary has only 1 way to protect its honor and uphold its
dignity i.e. Contempt of Court. It increases the importance of this
act.

[i]As per the observations of Justice Wilmot in R. v. Almon made as

early as in 1765:

 “… And whenever men’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally

shaken, it is the most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of
justice, and, in my opinion, calls out for a more rapid and immediate
redress than any other obstruction whatsoever; not for the sake of
Judges, as apricate individuals, but because they are the channels
by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people.”

Constitutional Validity of the act:

In complementary to the act, the act also finds its essence and
validity in certain Articles of the constitution.

Article 129: Grants Power to Supreme Court to punish for

Contempt of Court itself

Article 142(2): Enables Supreme Court to; to investigate and punish

any person for contempt.
Article 144: Advises Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of
Supreme Court

Moreover, Article 255 ensures continuity of Contempt of Court Act.

Article 215:  Grants power to high court to punish for Contempt of

Court.

 Also, Section 10 of the “Contempt of Court Act, 1971” grants every

High Court the power to exercise Jurisdiction, power and authority.

[ii]As per rule 3 of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of

the Supreme Court, 1975. There are 3 ways to start proceedings for
Contempt of Court:

 [i] Suo motu; or

 [ii] On a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General; or

 [iii] On a petition made by a person and in the case of a criminal

contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the
Solicitor General.

Time to time, questions were raised on validity of the act, is it

necessary to carry on with a concept prevalent in English law whose
main purpose was to suppress the voice of Indian during British
colonial period. And from time to time, Supreme Court has passed
orders explaining its importance and found the act constitutionally
valid.

Arguments against Contempt of Court

Despite Constitutional validity and Supreme Court judgements, the

act and concept has been criticized on several arguments:

 Suppression of Freedom of Speech: Contempt of court laws

can sometimes be seen as a restriction on freedom of speech
and expression. Critics argue that these laws may discourage
open criticism of the judiciary or hinder public scrutiny of
court proceedings, potentially impeding transparency and
accountability.
 Subjectivity and Ambiguity: The concept of contempt of court
can be subjective and open to interpretation, as it
encompasses a wide range of behaviors. The lack of clear
guidelines on what constitutes contempt can lead to
inconsistency and potential abuse of power in applying these
laws.
  Disproportionate Punishments: The punishments for
contempt of court can vary widely, ranging from fines to
imprisonment. Critics argue that in some cases, the
punishments imposed for contempt may be disproportionate
to the offense committed, leading to concerns of excessive
punishment and potential violations of human rights.
 Chilling Effect: The fear of being held in contempt of court can
create a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from
participating in or reporting on legal proceedings. This could
hinder public engagement with the justice system and limit
the flow of information.
 Impediment to Fair Trials: Contemptuous behavior by
individuals involved in a trial, such as jurors or witnesses, can
disrupt the proceedings and potentially impact the fairness of
the trial. However, critics argue that contempt of court laws
should not be used as a tool to suppress legitimate challenges
or criticisms that may arise during a trial.

It is important to note that contempt of court laws vary across

jurisdictions, and the application and implications of these laws can
differ. The negative points mentioned above are not universally
applicable but highlight some concerns associated with contempt of
court in general.

Conclusion:

‘A slap on face of judicial officer is; in fact slap on face of Justice

delivery system’ as stated in judgement of ‘Prem Surana vs. Addl.
Munsif & Judicial Magistrate’. Courts are regarded as temple of
justice. A person who feels helpless, cheated or discriminated
approaches the gates of court. Because of his believe that his/ her
voice would be heard and he will get justice. But on the other hand,
Courts system seems difficult to understand by most of general
public and justice seems beyond the reach of poor. Yes, judiciary
has some shortcomings that cannot be denied. But it is also
important to hold the dignity of court. No simple fellow being should
be allowed to criticize the higher court and say anything what he
wants in the name of Freedom of Speech and expression. No right is
absolute and so no act or offence. A balance must be created
between healthy criticism and Court’s dignity.