SUBMTTED BY: JOGESH THAKKAR

USN: 40316221021
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
ACT 70 OF 1971
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) was passed by the
Parliament in December 1971 and it came into force w.e.f. 24th
December, 1971.

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the

offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law
and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the
authority, justice and dignity of the court.
 Judiciary ensures justice and equality to every individual and institutions,
therefore, the makers of the constitution upheld the sanctity and prestige of
the revered institution by placing provisions under articles 129 and 215
of the constitution, which enables the courts to hold individuals in
contempt if they attempt to demean or belittle their authority. There have
been several legislations passed since as early as 1926 to govern the law of
contempt in the country, the current one being The Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 which stood amended last in 2006.

 [ Article 129 in The Constitution Of India 1949

 129. Supreme Court to be a court of record The Supreme Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself ]

 [ Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949

 215. High Courts to be courts of record Every High Court shall be a court of
record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself ]
The law pertaining to contempt in India, like all other laws in the
country, traces its history to English laws and statutes. It is
interesting to note in this context that there were no statutory laws to
this effect until the year 1926 and the law relating to contempt was
governed by the corresponding British legal principles and laws
governing their superior courts of record. The Contempt of Courts
Act, 1926 was the first statutory legislation that granted powers to
High Courts of Judicature established by Letters Patent to punish
contempt’s of subordinates courts. The Act, however, failed to
provide for contempt of courts subordinate to Chief Courts and
Judicial Commissioner’s Court, as also for an extra-territorial
jurisdiction of High Courts and was therefore repealed by The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, with the institution of which all the
respective Indian states Acts also stood rescinded.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 did not confer any new powers
on the courts. It, however, made two significant digressions from the
prior Act of 1926 in that, one, it redefined ‘High Court’ to include the
Courts of Judicial Commissioner and two, provided for the aforesaid
to try for contempt's subordinate to them as well.

Surprisingly though, the term ‘contempt’ had not been defined in any
of the Acts yet and there was a still lot of ambiguity present around
the law of contempt. Also, it was realized that the said law needed to
be dealt with in light of two fundamental rights granted in the
constitution, namely, freedom of speech and expression and
right to personal liberty. Thus, there was set up a committee in
1961 under the chairmanship of late H.N. Sanyal, the
recommendations of which took the form of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, and overhauled the entire law relating to
contempt in the country.
{ COURT OF RECORD - a court whose proceedings are recorded and
available as evidence of fact.
JUDICATURE - the administration of justice}
The Contempt of Court Act defines contempt of court
for the first time. Before It there was no statutory
definition of the concept. Even the definition given in
the act is not a definition but only a classification or
categories of Contempt of Court.
As per Corpus Juris Secondum the contempt of court is
disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to the
authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a
willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order. It
also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the
authority of the court and the administration of the law
into disrespect.
Short title and extent:

(1) This Act may be called the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971.
(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.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(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) "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) scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, 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;
(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.
 Criminal contempt is conduct directed against dignity of court
criminal contempt is directed against the power and dignity of the
court the definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include
any act of a person which would tend to interfere with the
administration of justice or which would lower the authority of the
court.
 To constitute the criminal contempt it is not necessary that the
publication or other act should have actually resulted in scandalizing
or lowering the authority of the court but it is not enough that the act
is likely to scandalizing. Thus the offence of contempt is complete by
mere attempt and does not depend on actual deflection of justice.
 “Scandalize” connotes to speak falsely or maliciously, to bring into
reproach, dishonor, disgrace, to offend the feelings, conscience or
propriety of an action
 The publication which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere
with, the due course of any judicial proceeding is taken as contempt
of court. Whenever the publication or any other act unduly influences
the result of a litigation it is treated as criminal contempt of court and
is punished therefore
 (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 fine 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 that 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 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 sub-sections (4) and (5)-
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or
other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors–
In this case also the Supreme Court once again declared that
the powers of contempt are inherent in nature and the
provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said pre-
existing situation.
That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in
addition to and not in derogation of Articles 129 and 215 of the
Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of
jurisdiction contemplated by the said two Articles.
Here it was additionally held by the Apex Court that the High
Court cannot create or assume power to inflict a new type of
punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju & Anr.–
In this case, the High Court of Karnataka observed that the orders of
Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in
appeal/revision.
While elucidating on the principles relating to contempt law the Court
remarked that the definition of Civil Contempt includes willful breach
of an undertaking given to a Court. Public interest requires that
solemn undertakings given to a Court with the intention of obtaining
any benefit should not be breached willfully. No litigant can be
allowed to wriggle away from a solemn undertaking given to the
Court, as it will open dangerous trends and defeat the very purpose
of giving undertakings to Court.
It was further observed that once litigants give an undertaking to a
Court, they should comply with it in all circumstances, the only
exceptions being fraud or statutory bar. They cannot break an
undertaking with impunity and then attempt to justify it. The breach
of solemn undertaking given to a Court is a serious matter and will
have to be dealt with seriously.
No definition of the word ‘court’ is found in the contempt of court
act 1971. The word “court” has been defined in evidence Act, but
it is only for the purpose of interpreting the word “court” for the
purpose of contempt of court Act.

As per Stephen in every court there must be at least three

constituent parts- the actor: the Reus or defendant, who is called
upon to make satisfaction for it, and the judex or judicial power
which is to examine truth of fact and to determine the law arising
upon that fact and if injury appears to have been done to
ascertain and by its officers to apply the remedy
In S.K. Mohommedbhikhan v. Manager Chandra Bhanu
Cinema

The court has observed that in order that an authority can be

considered to be judicial authority it should be covered within the
scope and ambit of the word “court” as employed by the
Contempt of Courts Act and for this purpose the following test
must be satisfied by such authority:

1.The power entrusted to the authority must be judicial power of

the state.
2.The source of the power must emanate from the statute and
must not be based merely on agreement between parties.
3.The manner of exercise of power must partake of essential
attribute of court.
4.The decision of the authority must result in binding decision
between parties.
1.Arbitrator appointed by the court under
Arbitration Act
2.Election tribunals constituted under the
Representation of People Act, 1951
3.Bar council of India or of state and their
Disciplinary Committees constituted under
The Advocates Act,1961
Even though this Act has been enacted to
preserve the prestige and dignity of the court
but from a certain point of view that these
powers are some time misused Articles
19(1)(a) and 21 continue to put a question
mark on the face of the entire legislation, it is
important to note that, while there may be a
shade of precariousness in the current
legislation that needs to be plugged