law learning

8/8/2019 Law Learning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/law-learning 1/25

• Non – appearance of the counsel in the case is professional misconduct. For withdrawal

notice to the client be given. G. Sridher & Anr. v. State of A.P. 2005(2) RCR(Cri.) 116

A.P.

• False affidavit by deponent client regarding the age. The advocate has no responsibility.

New Delhi Bar Ass. (Regd.) & Ors. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Govt. of

Delhi, 2004(2) RCR (Cri.) 40 Delhi.• Advocates Act – State can appoint more than one addl. Advocate Generals of its choice.

This appointment is not constitutional, rather it is executive. M.T. Khan v. Govt. of

A.P., JT 2004(1) (SC) 146 : AIR 2004 SC 2934

• Allegations by the advocate against the Judges in Review petition after dismissal of SLP,

matter referred to the Bar Counsel of India for necessary action. U.O.I. v. Gulshan

Bajwa, JT 2003(8) (SC) 440.

• Duty of advocate – One should not refer a judgment already overruled and that there isno other judgment by larger bench. Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish Kumar

Ranchhoddas Patel, 2003 Cri.L.J. 3984 Guj.

• Referring wrong arguments or Changing stand at different stages of proceedings is no

offence covering the application of s. 195 Cr. P.C . N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao,20003 (2) RCR (Cri. ) 424 (SC): AIR 2003 SC 541: 2003 Cri. L.J. 820.

• Review – Order already passed by the Bar Council can be reviewed even after 60 days.Licence cancelled is restored . JT 2003 (4) (SC) 435. B

• An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business,

rather it is an officer of the court and legal profession is not a trade or business rather it is

a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients withinlegally permissible limits. R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR

(Cri) 166 (P&H).

• State Bar council has quasi judicial power and it also perform the role of the prosecutor and hence, is competent to file appeal being aggrieved person against the judgment of the

Bar council of India. Bar Council of A. P. v Kurapati Satyanarayana, 2003 SCC(Cri.) 155: AIR 2003 SC 175.

• S. 303 Cr. P.C-Memo of appearance is sufficient in criminal case. Vakalatname is not

necessary like the civil case. Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri)

429(Karnataka).

• Advocate cannot argue his own case as an advocate but he can argue his case while

appearing in person as general public. MCS- Barna v. C.B. Ramanurthy, 2002 (3)

RCR (Cri.) 696 (Karnataka).

• Rs. 8118 received by the counsel on behalf of his client and kept with him. Then produced forged documents to establish that he has paid the amount. Licence cancelled

permanently. Harish Chander Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002 SCC (Cri,) 294 (SC): AIR 2002

SC 548.

• Advocates Act- Undue adjournments of the case is an abuse of the process and also a

misconduct. Mohd. Khalid v . State of Wst Bangal ,2002 (4) Crimes 160 (SC).

• Professional Misconduct-Running of STD/Photocopier in the name of advocate.Licence cancelled for 5 year. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Ass. Pathankot, Jt

2001 (9) (SC) 480: AIR 2002 SC 41.

• Third person an on advocate can represent a party without being general power of

attorney of the party with the prior permission of the Court which has to be obtained bythe party and not by the third person. Mathai v. Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge,

1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 1 Kerala 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 373 (SC).

• Merely ownership of taxi in his name of an advocate is not sufficient without his personalengagement in business. P.K. Sharma v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1999 SC 98.

• Supreme Court Rules for the allotment of the chambers of the advocates, Vinay

Balchandra Joshi v. Registrar General , supreme Court of India, AIR 1999 SC 107.

• The disciplinary committee cannot dealt with the matter of an Advocate who was

treasurer of some society and the allegation was of no-accounting . Bapurao Pkhiddey

v. Suman doudey, JT 1999 (1) (SC) 273 : AIR 1999 SC 916.

• Advocates Act will not be applicable on an advocate during the period of the suspensionof his licence . Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR

1999 SC 902;

• The accused who is an advocate can represent his co-accused in the capacity of theadvocate in a criminal case till the licence of the accused advocate is in existence 2(1997)

CCR 536 : AIR 1980 Orissa 143.

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Advocateact/advocateact.htm






11. 11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside

jurisdiction

12. 12. Punishment for contempt of court

13. 13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases

14. 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court

15. 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

16. 16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

17. 17. Procedure after cognizance

18. 18.

Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches

19. 19. Appeals

20. 20. Limitation for actions for contempt

21. 21. Act not to apply to Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts

22. 22. Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to contempt

23. 23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules

24. 24. Repeal

RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME

COURT, 1975

THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

[70 OF 1971, 24-12-1971]

An Act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of courts

and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. 1. Short title and extent

(1) (1) This Act may be called the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(2) (2) It extends to the whole of India:

PROVIDED that it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir except to the

extent to which the provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.

2. 2. Definitions

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/contempt_court1.htm#s11



http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/contempt_courts2.htm#s13












http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/contempt_courts2.htm#rules





















In this Act,, unless the context otherwise requires—

(a) (a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) (b) “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;

(c) (c) “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—

(i) (i) scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends

to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the

due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or

tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

(b) (d) “High Court” means the High Court for a State or a Union territory,

and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.

COMMENTS

The civil court while executing a decree against a judgment debtor is not concerned and

bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment and decree is willful. Once a decree has

been passed it is the duty of the court to execute whatever may be the consequence thereof. But

while examining the grievance of the person who has involved the jurisdiction of the court to

initiate a proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before such contemner is held

guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was willful and

intentional.— Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 1994 (6) SCC 332

The court must always be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same

time it will be inadvisable to require compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the

instance of the person proceeded against for contempt.— M.I. Khanday v. A.M. Rather 1994 (4)

SCC 34



In a government of laws and not of men the executive branch of government bears a

grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial order.— Mohd. Aslam v. UOI 1994 (6)

SCC 442

Where an undertaking is given by a party and accepted by the court and order passed on

the basis of such undertaking, the order in substance amounts to an injunction restraining the

party from acting in breach thereof.— Noorali v. KMM Shetty AIR 1990 SC 464.

Where there is willful breach of undertaking the court has not only the power but in

appropriate cases, the duty to enforce obedience to the terms of the undertaking given to it.—

Kanta Gupta v. VIII Additional District Judge Supp 1 SCC 219

Where a case of willful disobedience is made out the court will not hesitate and will

convict the delinquent officer and so lenience in the attitude of the court should be expected from

the court as a matter of cause merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the

service career of the concerned officer.— Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromani Mondal AIR

1991 SC 281

Unless it is shown that the order of the court about which non compliance is complained

is without jurisdiction or void ab initio the parties to the order are bound to comply with it even

though it may be illegal.— S.M. Kawale v. State of Maharashtra 1994 CrLJ 735

No court including the court of contempt is entitled go take frivolities and trivialities into

account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom contempt proceeding is

taken.-S. Mukhopadhay v. T.D. Karam Chandani 1995 (75) ELT 39

Liberty of free expression is not to be conferred with a licence to make unfounded,

unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the judges or the courts in relation to judicial

matters.— In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 446

If freedom of expression sub serves public interest cannot gag it or manacle it; but if thecourt considered the attack on the Judge or judges successions, offensive, intimidatory or

malicious, beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who

challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.— C. Ranichandran

lyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattchargee 1995 (5) SCC 457

Making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to

scandalizing the court. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial officer/authority by



any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat

to judicial independence and needs to be dealt with the strong arm of law.— U.P. Sales Tax

Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association 1995 (5) SCC 716

The fact that the order appointing the receiver is improperly procured is no justification

for interfering with him since the validity can be challenged by application to the court.— In re

Mukunda Chandra Halder 1994 CrLJ (NOC) 189

Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such a jurisdiction is vested in

the court in order that the majesty of law can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to

be made in the course of justice, the court must take serious view of the same.— Rakesh Kaul v.

Registrar, High Court of J&K 1994 (5) SCC 759

Anyone who makes or attempts to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the

unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt

of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false

affidavits or making a false statement on oath in courts aim at striking a blow at the rule of law

and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the

judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at steak.— Dhanjay

Sharma v. State or Haryana 1995 (3) SCC 757

3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

(1) (1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he

has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere

with, or obstructs, ot tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with

any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time

he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.

(2) (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any

other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is

mentioned in sub-section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding

which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute

contempt of court.

(3) (3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he

has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-

section (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for

believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid:

PROVIDED that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of—



(i) (i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published

otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, (25 of 1867);

(ii) (ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in

conformity with the rules contained in section 5 of the said Act.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, a judicial proceeding—

(b) (b) is said to be pending—

i. i. in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is

instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,

ii. ii. in the case of a criminal proceeding under the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)¹(see Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973), or any other law—

(a) (a) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the

charge sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues

summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused,

and

(b) (b) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the

matter to which the proceeding relates, and n the case of a civil

or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be

pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a

case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or

revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or

revision has expired:

(c) (c) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be

deemed to be pending merely by reason of the fact that

proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence

passed therein are pending.

COMMENTS

Sec. 3 is in nature of an exception to the categories of “criminal contempt” which fall

under sub-clause (ii) and to certain categories of “criminal contempt” which fall under sub-

clause (iii) of s. 2(c) but not to that category of contempt which falls under sub-clause (i) of s. 2

(c).— Rachpudi S. Rao v. Advocate General AIR 1981 SC 755

It depends upon the subjective state of mind of not knowing of pendency and the

objecting demonstration by the person concerned that he had no reasonable grounds for believing

that any such proceeding was pending.— Pending v. Standard Trimbak Yardi 1975 CrLJ 531



4. Fair and accurate report of Judicial proceeding not contempt

Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt

of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.

COMMENTS

Reading s. 4 with the provision of s. 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is clear

that what is meant by the words “judicial proceedings” is day to day proceeding of the court.

Assuming though not granting that it is capable of a wider construction, it only permits a

publication of “fair and accurate” report of a judicial proceeding.— Subash Chandra v. S.M.

Agarwal 1984 CrLJ 481

Before a party to a litigation may be heard in support of its case, it must punge itself of

the contempt that tends to impede the course of justice by the contempt that has to be punged

should be an admitted or proved contempt and not merely an alleged contempt.— Arun Tandon

v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr.LJ 459

5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the

merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.

COMMENTS

Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of

their judgments fair comments even if outspoken but made without maturity or attempting to

impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any

punishment for contempt of court.— In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 4 SCC 446

In a democracy fair criticism of the working of all the organs of State should be welcome

and would in fact promote the interests of democratic functioning. Sec. 5 of the Act evidently

enacted with a view to secure the right of fair criticism provides that a person shall not be guilty

of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of the case which has been

heard and finally decided. This does not mean that the right to commit for any contempt by

scandalizing the court has become obsolete. The question would still be whether the publication

alleged to be offending is by way of fair comment on the merits of the case.— Vincent

Panikulangara v. Gopal Kurup 1982 CrLJ 2094

In the case of issuance of mere notice of contempt, the right of hearing cannot be denied.

Refusing a right of hearing to a party against whom merely a notice for contempt has been issued

is fraught with grave injstice.— Arun Tendan v. Insurance Co. Ltd. 1983 Cr LJ 459

6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt

A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him

in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to—



(a) (a) any other subordinate court, or

(b) (b) the High Court,

to which it is subordinate.

Explanation: In this section, “subordinate court” means any court subordinate to a High Court.

COMMENTS

Unwarranted and defamatory attack upon the character and ability of the Judge made by

the counsel in the application of transfer of proceedings from the said court does not constitute a

mere complaint under s. 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, but clearly constitutes criminal

contempt by scandalizing the court within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971.— State of M.P. v. Chandrakant Saraf 1985 CrLJ 1716

7. Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not

contempt except in certain cases

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of

contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any

court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is to say--

(a) (a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for

the time being in force;

(b) (b) where the court, on ground of public policy or in exercise of any power

vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the

proceeding or of information of the description which is published;

(c) (c) where the court sits in chambers on in camera for reason connected with

public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to

those proceedings;

(d) (d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention

which is an issue in proceedings.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall

not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the

whole or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera, unless the court

has expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public policy, or for reasons

connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground that it contains

information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise of any power

vested in it.



COMMENTS

The press reporter and the publisher of newspapers do not have any indefeasible right to

put his own gloss on the statements in court by selecting stray passages out of context which

might have a tendency to convey to the reader to the prejudice of a party to the proceedings a

cause different from what would appear when the statement is read in its own context.—

Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union v. K.M. Mathew 1984 CrLJ 1061

8. Other defences not affected

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any other defence

which would have been a valid defence in any proceedings for contempt of court has ceased to

be available merely by reason of the provisions of this Act.

COMMENTS

If there is specific time limit in the direction, such non compliance cannot be regarded as

willful or deliberate disregard of such direction.— Atmaram Kanosir v. L.K.R. Prasad 1990 Cr

LJ 169

The power to inflict punishment for contempt of court cannot be invalidated on the

ground that law which does not allow plea of truth as a defence is in contravention of Act. 19(1)

(a) of the Constitution— V.M. Kanade v. Madhav Godkari 1990 Cr. LJ 190

While ss. 3 to 7 mentions special acts that are not contempt, s. 8 by implication indicated

that the Act is not exhausted as to what is not contempt.— High Court v. T.K. Subamma 1990 Cr

LJ 1159

An intention to interfere with the administration of justice is not an essential ingredient to

the offence of contempt of court. It is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so

to interfere.— Pritam Pal v. High Court M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

Truth of the allegation when the contemner says that he can prove, cannot be put up as a

defence in charge for contempt of court.— V.M. Kande v. Madhav Gadkari 1990 CrLJ 190

9. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience,

breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be

punishable apart from this Act.

COMMENTS

What s. 9 contemplates is that an act or action which was not contempt of court before

the Act came into force shall not be punishable as contempt of court under the Act.— Harish

Chandra Mishra v. Justice S. Ali Ahmed AIR 1986 Pat 65



Sec. 9 makes is absolutely clear that it is only such disobedience that is made punishable

as contempt of court which is made specifically punishable under the Act. There is no provision

in the Act like s. 34 or s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of which aiding or abetting

can be punished.— Sham Kant v. Dayana Bai 1989 Cr LJ 2431

10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in

accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate

to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:

PROVIDED that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been

committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable

under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

CONTEMPTS

Where the misconduct complained of falls under Contempt of Courts Act as well as Penal

Code, independent of each other, the accused can be punished for contempt even if he has once

bee punished under s. 228 of the Penal Code for the act committed by him, and the principle of

double jeopardy is in applicable in the case.— Court on its own motion v. Milkhi Ram 1992 Cr

LJ 2130

Power to punish the contemner for itself which is inherent in the court of reward includes

power to dismiss the case for contempt. When it has power to dismiss on merit it has the power

to dismiss for default. Equally as an adjunct or incidental thereto, it has also inherent power to

restore the application dismissed for default.— D. V.K. Kesva Raju v. S.R. Govinda 1990 Cr LJ

299

The corporate veil is being blatantly used as a clock is willfully disobey the orders of the

court. Lifting the corporate veil is imperative to punish improper conduct. It is the requirement

of public interest that the corporate veil must be lifted to find out the person who disobeyed the

order of the court.— yoti Ltd. V. K.K. Bhasin 1987 Cr LJ 1281

11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside

jurisdiction

A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any

court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside

the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is

within or outside such limits.

CONTEMPTS

It is of utmost importance that there has to be a specific order of restraint against a person

from indulging in a particular type of activity, the violation of which can make him liable for

contempt. Where there is no prayer made for restraining the defendant from doing a particular

act, mere status quo will not include such act and one will not be guilty of contempt.— S. Anand

Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kumar 1991 Cr LJ 996

12. Punishment for contempt of court



(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court

may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with

find which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

PROVIDED that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be

remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

Explanation: An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified

or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no

court shall impose a sentence in excess of tghat specified in sub-section (1) for

any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found

guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of

justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him

to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not

exceeding six months as it may be think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any

undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt

was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of

business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the

contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the

detention in civil prison of each such person:

PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to

such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he

exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court

referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been

committed with the consent or connivance, of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any

director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or

other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be

enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager,

secretary or other officer.

Explanation: For the purpose of such-sections (4) and (5)—

(a) (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or

other association of individuals; and

(b) (b) “director’, in relation to a firm, means partner in the firm

COMMENTS

Those who have to discharge duty in a court of justice are protected by the law are

shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate interference in the discharge of such

duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officer of the court would



amount to criminal contempt and the court must take serious cognizance of such conduct.—

Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2176

In a case where a senior IAS officer after having been found guilty of contempt for

deliberately not implementing the order of the Supreme Court was sentenced to simple

imprisonment for a period of one month, the court observed that, if the order of even the highest

court of the land is allowed to be willfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let

off by remitting the sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in

the country.— J Vasudavan v. T.R. Dhananjaya 1995 (6) SCC 249

The contemner cannot be let off or an apology which is far from sincere, hollow no

remorse, no regret, and merely a device to escape the rigour of the law.— M.B. Sanghi v. High

Court of P&H AIR 1981 SC 1834

An apology is not a weapon of the defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is

it intended to operate as panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly

consciousness of a wrong done, if an injury inflicted and the earnest desire to make such

separation as lies in the wrongdoer’s power.— DDA v. Skipper Construction 1995 (3) SCC 507

It is essential to take strong measures to see that justice becomes available to all, who

would not get it if lawful orders of competent courts are violated which would result in people

with muscle and money power alone being able to settle score on streets.— State of Orissa v.

Bisaya Mohanty 1993 Cr LJ 3311

In the instant case the court held the contemner, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of the

offence of the criminal contempt of the court for having interfered with and obstructed the course

of justice by trying to threaten, over awe and overbear the court by using insulting disrespectful

and threatening language and committed him of the said offence. The jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court under Act 129 is sui generis. The jurisdiction to take cognizance by any statute.

Neither the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 nor the Advocates Act, 1961, can be preserved into

service to restrict the said jurisdiction.— Ir re Vinayachandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584

Where the allegation is one of the disobedience of the order of the court where it is not

possible to attribute definite knowledge of order of the court to party proceeded against, the party

shall be exonerated.— M.J. Maulana Hasan Ali v. Amiruddin 1992 Cr LJ 1986

The order of holding a person guilty of having committed contempt of court cannot be

reviewed by the court which is amenable to correction in an appeal under s. 19 of the Act.—

Senior Sub Judge v. R. A. Kawzal 1991 Cr LJ 2432

The Supreme Court being the apex court and a superior court of record has power to

determine its jurisdiction under article 129 of the Constitution and it has jurisdiction to initiate or

entertain proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts.— Delhi Judicial Service Association v.

State of Gujarat 1991 Cr LJ 3086

Where the unconditional apology is offered it has its due reflection on the question of

punishment and it cannot completely absolute contempt.— 1990 SCC (Cri) 626

Apology must be such as serving a large purpose, as a deterrent to those who treat the

orders of the court with callous disregard or indifference. The ritualistic and formal apology in

affidavit is not sufficient.— K.P. Isar & Sons (P) Ltd. V. K. Prathydhanan 1992 Cr LJ 2587



13. Contempt not punishable in certain cases

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no

court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is

satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or

tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

COMMENTS

A willful and deliberate violation of the order of the court must be shown to

interfere with the due course of justice before such conduct can be punishment for

contempt.—Incon (India) Ltd. V. A.L. Rungta 1981 Cr LJ 144

The importance of the section lies in this that by implication it prevents the

court from taking a technical view or a vindictive attitude. Consistent with the

respect and dignity in which the court is held, the court is expected to conduct itself

in a decent and magnanimous fashion.—anisha Mukherjee v. Ashok Chatterjee 1985

Cr LJ 1224

Where the act complained of substantially interferes or tends to interfere with

the board stream of administration of justice that will be punishable in spite of s. 13.

If an act undermines the prestige of the court, it is certainly substantially interfering

with due course of justice. The impairment of the dignity and the authority of the

court is to be exchanged. The purpose of contempt proceeding is to preserve and

maintain the flow of stream of justice in its insulted form and purity.—Laxman Pd.

Agarwal v. K.P. Singh 1991 Cr LJ 2834

14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High

Court

(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its

own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the

court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the

court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall--

(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is

charged.

(b) Afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;

c) After taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be

offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after

adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and

(d) Make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as

may be just.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person

charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing,



to have the charge against him tried by some judge other than the judge or judges

in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and

the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of

proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the

matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the

Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial

thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person

charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a

direction given under sub-section (2), by a judge other than the judge or judges in

whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall

not be necessary for the judge or judges in whose presence or hearing the offenceis alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed

before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the

case.

(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct that a

person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody

as it may specify:

PROVIDED that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum of money

as the court thinks sufficient is executed with or without sureties conditioned that

the person charged shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and

shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the court:

PROVIDED FURTHER that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail

from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his

attendance as aforesaid.

COMMENTS

The fact that the process is to summary does not means that the procedural

requirement, viz. that an opportunity of meeting the charge is denied to the

contemner. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated, depend,

upon the circumstances so long as the gift of the specific allegation is made clear or

otherwise the contemner is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always

necessary to formulate the change is a specific allegation. Despite the objectionthat the judge deals with the contempt himself and the contemner has little

opportunity to defend himself there is a residue case where not only it is justifiable

to punish on the spot but it is the only realistic way of dealing with certain offender.

The judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must

be able to take steps to restore as early and quickly as possible.—In re Vinay

Chandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584



The power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court being courts of

record under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power

and that the jurisdiction vested is a special one and not derived from any other

statute but derived only from arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution.—Pritam Pal

Singh v. High Court of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 904

15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to

in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own

motion or on a motion made by:-

(a) the Advocate-General. Or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General (Inserted by Act 45 of 1976) [or]

`(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such

Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,

specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law

Officer.]

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High

Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court oron a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory,

by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the

contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation: In this section, the expression “Advocate-General” means—

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the

Solicitor-General’

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the

State or any of the States for which the High Court has been

established;

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law

Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,

specify in this behalf.

COMMENTS

The whole object of prescribing procedural modes of taking cognizance in s.

15 is to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court and the Supreme Court being

vested by frivolous complaints of contempt of court. Sec. 15(2) does not restrict the

power of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of a subordinate court

on its own motion although apparently the section does not say so.—Delhi Judicial

Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR SC 2176



Though the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court

can be regulated by legislation by appropriate Legislature under Entry 77 of List 1

and 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971,

the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court is given a

constitutional foundation by declaring such courts, to be the “courts of records”

under arts. 129 and 215 of the Constitution and there from the inherent power of

the Supreme Court and High Court cannot be taken away by any legislation short of

constitutional legislations.—Pritam Pal v. High Court 1992 Cr LJ 1269

16. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a

judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt

of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is

liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observation or remarks made

by a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding subordinate court

in an appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate or other person

against the order or judgment of the subordinate court.

COMMENTS

The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control for the court

domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments,

undignified or scathing criticism of Counsel, parties or witnesses. The court has the

inherent power to act truly upon its own convictions on any matter coming before it

for adjudication, but it is a general principal of the highest importance to the proper

administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against

persons or authority whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely

necessary.— A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta 1990 (2) SCC 533

17. Procedure after cognizance

(1) Notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served personally

on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs

otherwise.

(2) The notice shall be accompanied—

(a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of

the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is

founded; and

(b) in case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate

court, by a copy of the reference.

(3) The court may, if it is satisfied that a person charged under section 15 is

likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the

attachment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable.



(4) Every attachment under sub-section (3) shall be effected in the manner

provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (See Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973), for the attachment of property in execution of a decree for

payment of a money, and if, after such attachment, the person charged appears

and shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abscond or keep out of the

way to avoid service of the notice, the court shall order the release of his property

from attachment upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit.

(5) Any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in

support of the defence, and the court may determine the matter of the charge

either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be

necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires.

COMMENTS

It is not open to any contemner to take the plea that truth of the allegation is

a justification.— Advocate General v. Rachapudi Subba Rao 1991 Cr LJ 613

The contemner is not entitled to adduce evidence in jurisdiction of his

conduct.—V.M. Kanade v. Mahav Gadkari 1990 Cr LJ 190

The contempt proceedings are not criminal proceeding but are proceedings

of a summary nature and the courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such

proceedings and accordingly extend the normal rules of procedure in contempt

cases so as to act fairly and judiciously.—Vidaya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu

Olympic Association 1991 Cr LJ 2722

18. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches

(1) Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and

determined by a Bench of not less than two judges.

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.

19. Appeals

(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in

the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt--

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not les

than two judges of the court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:

PROVIDED that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial

Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate court may order that--

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and



COMMENTS

The expression “not in derogation of” is intended to mean that substantive

powers of contempt cannot be abrogated by the Act.—High Court of Karnataka v.

Y.K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ 1159

23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules

The Supreme Court or, as may be, any High Court may make rules, not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its

procedure.

24. Repeal

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952). Is hereby repealed.

RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF SUPREME

COURT, 1975

GSR 142—In exercise of the powers under section 23 of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 read with article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers

enabling it in this behalf, the Supreme Court hereby makes, with the approval of the

President, the following rules:

1. (1) These Rules may be called the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for

Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the fficial

Gazette (Published in the Gazette of India, dtd. 1-2-1975 and came into force from

the date).

PART I

2. (1) Where contempt is committed in view or presence or hearing of the

Court, the contemner may be punished by the Court before which it is committed

either forthwith or on such date as may be appointed by the Court in that behalf.

(2) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that the

contemner shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:

PROVIDED that the contemner may released on bail on such terms as the

Court may direct.

PART II3. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in rule 2, the Court

may take action:

(a) suo motu, or

(b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, of



(c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt

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

4. (a) Every petition under rule 3(b) or (c) shall contain:-

(i) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or

petitioners and of the persons charged;

(ii) nature of the contempt alleged and such material facts, including

the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for

the proper determination of the case;

(iii) if a petition has previously been made by him on the same facts,

the petitioner shall give the details of the petition previously made and shall also

indicate the result thereof;

(b) The petition shall be supported by an affidavit.

(c) Whether the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his

possession or power, he shall file such document or documents or true

copies thereof with the petition.

(d) No court fee shall be payable on the petition, and on any documents

filed in the proceedings.

5. Every petition under rule 3(b) and (c) shall be posted before the Court forpreliminary hearing and for orders as to issue of notice. Upon such hearing, the

Court if satisfied that no prima facie case has been made out for issue of notice,

may dismiss the petition, and, if not so satisfied direct that notice of the petition be

issued to the contemner.

6. (1)Notice to the person charged shall be in Form. I. The person charged

shall, unless otherwise ordered, appear in person before the Court as directed on

the date fixed for hearing of the proceeding, and shall continue toremain present

during hearing till the proceeding is finally disposed of by order of the Court.

(2) When action is instituted on petition, a copy of the petition along with

the annexure and affidavits shall be served upon the person charged.

7. The person charged may file his reply duly supported by an affidavit or

affidavits.

8. No further affidavit or document shall be filed except with the leave of the

Court.

9. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, seven copies of the Paper Book shall

be prepared in the Registry, one for the petitioner, one for the opposite party and

the remaining for the use of the Court. The Paper Book in the case shall be

prepared at the expense of the Central Government and shall consist of the

following documents:-

(i) Petition and affidavits filed by the petitioner.



(ii) A copy of, or a statement relating to, the objectionable matter constituting

the alleged contempt.

(iii) Reply and affidavit of the opposite party.

(iv) Documents filed by the parties.

(v) Any other document which the Registrar may deem fit to include.

10. The Court may direct the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to appear and

assist the Court.

11. (1) The Court may, if it has reason to believe that the person charged is

absconding or is otherwise evading service of notice, or if he fails to appear in

person or to continue to remain present in person in pursuance of the notice, direct

a warrant bailable or non-bailable for his arrest, addressed to one or more police

officers or may order attachment of property. The warrant shall be issued under thesignature of the Registrar. The warrant shall be in Form II and shall be executed, as

far as may be in the manner provided for execution of warrants under the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

(2) The warrant shall be executed by the officer or officers to whom it is

directed, and may also be executed by any other police officer whose name is

endorsed upon the warrant by whom it is directed or endorsed.

(3) Where a warrant is to be executed outside the Union Territory of Delhi,the Court may instead of directing such warrant to police officer, forward it to the

Magistrate of the District or the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police

of the district within which the person charged is believed to be residing. The

Magistrate or the police office to whom the warrant is forwarded shall endorse his

name thereon, and cause it to be executed.

(4) Every person who is arrested and detained shall be produced before

the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding

the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the

Magistrate, and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period

without the authority of a Magistrate.

12. The Court may, either suo motu, or on motion made for that purpose,

order the attendance for cross-examination, or a person whose affidavit has been

filed in the matter.

13. The Court may make orders for the purpose of securing the attendance of

any person to be examined as a witness and for discovery of production of any

document.

14. The Court may pass such orders as it thinks fit including orders as to costs

which may be recovered as if the order were a decree of the Court.

15. Save as otherwise provided by the rules contained herein, the provisions

of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, shall, so far as may be, apply to proceedings in

relation to proceedings in contempt under this part.



PART III

16. Where a person charged with contempt is adjudged guilty and is

sentenced to suffer imprisonment, a warrant of commitment and detention shall be

made out in Form IV under the signature of the Registrar. Every such warrant shall

remain in force until it is cancelled by order of the Court or until is executed. The

Superintendent of the Jail shall in pursuance of the order receive the person so

adjudged and detain him in custody for the period specified therein, or until further

orders

FORM

NOTICE TO A PERSON CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT

[Rule 6]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Jurisdiction)

Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer a charge of Contempt of

Court by (here briefly state nature of the contempt).

You are hereby required to appear in person (or by Advocate if the Court has

so ordered) before this Court at New Delhi on the_________day of_____200__ at 10.30

o’clock in the forenoon.

You shall attend the Court in person* on the _________day of______200__and

shall continue to attend the Court on all days thereafter to which the case against

you stands adjourned and until final orders are passed on the charge against you.

Herein fail not.

Dated this _______day of ____200__

(SEAL)

REGISTRAR

*To be omitted where the person charged is allowed or ordered to appear by

Advocate.

FORM II

WARRANT OF ARREST

[Rule II]



To



(Name and designation of the person or persons who is or are to execute the

warrant)

Whereas ___________of_____________is charged with committing contempt of

this Court, you are hereby directed to arrest the said______and to produce him

before this Court on the_______day of______200__ at 10.30 o’clock in forenoon.

Herein fil not.

(If the Court has issued a bailable warrant, the following endorsement shall

be made on the warrant)

If the said_______shall give bail in the sum of Rs._________with one surety in

the sum of Rs._________( or two sureties each in the sum of Rs.__________) to attend

before this Court on the _______day of_____200___, at 10.30 o’clock in the forenoon

and to continue so to attend until otherwise directed by this Court, he may be

released.

(SEAL) REGISTRAR

FORM III

BOND AND BAIL-BONDS AFTER ARREST UNDER A WARRANT IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


I,____________(name) of_____________being brought before the District

Magistrate of_____________(or as the case may be) under a warrant issued to compel

my appearance to answer to the charge of contempt of the Supreme Court do

hereby bind myself to attend the Supreme Court on the _________day

of_________next, to answere to the said charge, and to continue so to attend, until,

otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, and in case of my making default herein,I bind myself to forfeit to Union India, the sum of rupees______________________

Dated this__________day of____________200___

(SIGNATURE)

I do hereby declare myself surety for the above named of_________that he

shall attend before_____________in the Supreme Court on the __________day

of_________next, to answer to the charge on which he has been arrested, and shall

continues to attend until otherwise directed by the Supreme Court, and, in case of

his making default therein, I bind myself to forfeit to Union of India, the sum of

rupees_______________.

Dated this_________day of______200__

(SIGNATURE)

FORM IV



WARRANT OF COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT

[Rule 16]



To the Superintendent (or Keeper) of the Jail at__________

Whereas at the Court Holden on this day (name and description of the

contemner) has been adjudged by the Court guilty of willful contempt of Court, and

he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period___________(here

specify the term) and/or to pay a fine of rupees_______

This is to authorise and require you, the Superintendent (or Keeper) of the

said Jail, to receive the said (name of the contemner) into your custody, together

with this warrant, and him safely to keep in the said Jail for the said period of (term

of imprisonment) or for such shorter period as may hereafter be fixed by order of

this Court and intimated to you. You are directed to return this warrant with an

endorsement certifying the manner of its execution.

You are further directed that while the said__________is in your custody,

produce the said__________before the Court, at all times when the Court shall sodirect.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this_________day

of______200__

(SEAL)

REGISTRAR