What is contempt of court??
The contempt of court first defined under the Contempt of Court Act 1971. The definition under the act is not a proper definition but only the classification or categories of Contempt of Court.
In general Contempt of Court can be defined as- Offend of the dignity of court and lower the court prestige.
In Halsbury’s it has been defined as follows :
‘Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt or to lower his authority or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of court is Contempt of Court.
According to section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court act 1971. Contempt of Court is either civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2(b) talks about civil contempt which means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. On the other hand section 2(c) talks about criminal contempt which means the publication of any matter or doing of any act whatsoever which-
1. Scandalize or tends to scandalize or lower or tends to lower or to lower the authority of, any court, or
Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding or
2. Prejudices or interferes or tend to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding or
3. Interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tend to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
The above definition is not exhaustive in merely indicate the contempt is either civil or criminal.
The knowledge plays a vital role in Contempt of Court most of the contempt is due to lack of knowledge of what amounts to contempt and what does not amount to contempt of court.
In State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin , the Supreme Court held that the court must satisfy itself before issuing notice of contempt to any person or issuing any interim direction in contempt proceeding.
The meaning of court which has been defined under Evidence act is only for the purpose of evidence act so it can’t be used for the purpose of Contempt of Court act .
To constitute court, a body ,tribunal or an authority must derived the power from state and exercise the judicial power of the state . Along with these features it must have power to give the decision or definite judgement which has finality and authoritativeness.
Object of Contempt Law and constitutional validity of the Contempt of Courts ACT
• Object of contempt law
The main object of proceedings in contempt of court is to keep the stream of justice unsullied and to also maintain confidence of people in impartial and fair administration of justice by the court of law.
The aim of the contempt is to protect people and orderly and equal administration of law and not to place judge at the position of immunity .
IN Bram Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. The apex court has observed that the main intend of the law of contempt is to protect the public whose interest would be offended if in any case authority of the Court is lowered and the confidence of people in administration of justice is weakened anyhow.
In other way we can say that the contempt law is made for punish of contempt which can cause interference with administration of justice. The jurisdiction of contempt should be exercised when there is urgent and real prejudice. It is further observed that this power is very necessary and important for achieving justice the court must ensure that there should be no rooms for complaints of ostentations exercise of power.
The law for contempt is necessary for the protection of dignity and the fair administration of justice which is important for the
Public.
Constitutional validity of Contempt Of Court
According to the Article 129 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court Shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court which includes the power to punish for contempt.
According to article 215 of the Constitution of India, every High Court Shall be court of record and shall I have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt.
Parliament and the State Legislature both have power to make laws with regard to any of the subject included in list III which is (concurrent list ) of the seventh schedule of the Constitution. The parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in list -I that is (Union list) of the seventh schedule of the Constitution. The state legislature has exclusive power to make laws with respect of any of the matter or subjects included in list II (State list) of the seventh scheduled of the Constitution.
Entry15 of list II includes the contempt of court but not including contempt of Supreme Court. Entry 77 of the list says that –
Constitution , organization, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt for such a court ) and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practice before the supreme Court.
As per Article 142(2) of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court shall have each and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery/production of any document, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
According to article 372 of Constitution of India, all the laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority. That is why section 22 of Courts Act 1971, it makes it clear that the provision of this Act shall be in Addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law relating to contempt of courts.
The contempt of Courts Act is not violation of article 14 as the classification of a founded on the intelligible differentia which distinguisher persons or things that are grouped together from other left out of the group and the differentia has a rational relation to the object thought to be achieved by the statute in question is reasonable.
The law relating to contempt of court imposes reasonable restrictions within the meaning of article 19(2) so, it is not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guarantee by article 19 (1)(2) of the Constitution.
The contempt of law is not violation of article 21 which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law as the procedure for contempt proceedings have statutory sanction.
As per the above grounds, it can be concluded that the contempt of court at 1971 is not in violation of any the provision of the Constitution and it is constitutionally valid .
Types of contempt of court
Broadly the contempt of court can be divided into parts that is –CIVIL CONTEMPT and CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
CIVIL CONTEMPT
Civil contempt is an act which involves a private injury by the disobedience of the judgment, order or other process off the court .
Civil contempt is defined under section 2(b) of the contempt of court act 1971.Civil contempt can said to be the failure to o be the order of court which is issued for the benefit of other part .
In case of Vidya Sagar v. Third Additional District Judge, Dehradun .
The two main purpose of the civil contempt are as follow:-
1. Vindication of the public interest by punishment of
Contemptuous conduct, and
2. Coercion to compel the contemner to do what the court requires of him
For the purpose to constitute the civil contempt the following two requirements are essentials–
• There should be disobedience of the order, decree , etc. of the court or the breach of undertaking given by the court .
• The disobedience or breach is willful.