Contempt in its true sense means scandalizing, disrespecting courts or individual judges or jury and
attributing motive to certain judgment. With the intent of implementing the orders of the court of law
and preserving it from scandalizing the “CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT” was modified and adopted in the
parliament in 1971. The punishment for contempt is maximum of six months imprisonment or fine of
rupees 2000 or both. It is a restriction on one of the fundamental rights “The Right to Expression”.
Contempt is of two types-Civil contempt and Criminal contempt.
According to the section 2(b) of The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, civil contempt means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree and direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to the court.
According to the section 2(c) of The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, criminal contempt means the
publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise)
of any matter or the doing of any other Act whatsoever which scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tends to lower, the authority of any court or prejudice or interfere or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding or ineterface or tends to interfere with or obstructs, the administration of justice in any other manner.
Criminal contempt is considered a conduct directed against dignity of Court. That’s why criminal contempt
often highlights as the only contempt. But that’s not true according to the report submitted on the review of
the Contempt of Court Acts, 1971 by The Law Commission of India chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan states that
there is more number of civil contempt cases (96,993) than civil contempt cases (583) in various high courts
and The Supreme Court. But despite high ratio of civil contempt the punishment ratio is very low. There is a
very fine line between contempt and criticisms and because of it criticism is understood as contempt. In its
previous judgments Supreme Court states that contempt victims should not be punished until the contempt
is intended or tends to interfere in the due course of administration of the courts. One of the major
drawback of the contempt law is that the judge is victim as well as prosecutor and the same person is
assuring justice which is against the basic theory of justice. In the recent cases we see renowned Prashant
Bhushan criticizing CJIs and found guilty in the court of law and fined for Rs 1. The court has the power to
pick up any publication and scrutinize it as contempt of court in the courts. This makes people hesitate to
present their point of views on certain judgments as they fear to be punished for contempt. This also present
judiciary in a bad light in front of the citizens.
The Courts should check civil contempt more than criminal contempt. The Courts should develop habit of
criticism on their judgment because they can also give controversial judgments. Even the Supreme Court is
supreme but not infallible. In a healthy democracy everything should be questioned. Courts should accept
their bonafide criticism as they will help them deliver better judgments in the future and criticism makes any
institution better not disrespect them.
Eduindex 