"Contempt of court" refers to any deliberate disobedience, disregard, or disrespect of the authority, dignity, or orders of a court. It is a legal concept that holds individuals or entities accountable for behavior that undermines the authority or integrity of the court or obstructs the administration of justice. Contempt of court can take various forms, including disobedience of court orders, disrespectful behavior in the courtroom, or any act that interferes with the functioning of the judicial process. Contempt of court is generally categorized into two types: Civil Contempt: This occurs when an individual or entity fails to comply with a court order or judgment. The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce the contemnor into complying with the court's directive. Once the individual complies, the contempt is considered purged. Criminal Contempt: This involves actions that directly undermine the authority and dignity of the court. It includes disrespectful or disruptive behavior during court proceedings, making false statements, or any act that obstructs the administration of justice. Criminal contempt is punitive, aiming to punish the offender for their misconduct. Consequences of contempt of court may include: Fines: The court may impose fines as a penalty for contemptuous behavior. The fines are intended to serve as a deterrent and may be compensatory or punitive. Imprisonment: In cases of serious contempt, the court has the authority to order imprisonment. The duration of imprisonment can vary, and it may be either immediate or deferred, allowing the contemnor an opportunity to rectify their actions. Compensation: In civil contempt cases, the court may order the contemnor to compensate the aggrieved party for any losses or damages resulting from the contemptuous behavior. Apology or Purge Contempt: In civil contempt, the contemnor may be given an opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the court's order or apologizing for their actions. It's important to note that the power to punish for contempt of court is essential for maintaining the authority and effectiveness of the judicial system. However, it is also crucial that this power is exercised judiciously to ensure a fair balance between protecting the court's integrity and respecting individual rights. Contempt proceedings typically follow specific legal procedures to guarantee due process and the right to a defense for the alleged contemnor.

Dear client, Introduction Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, in an interview, explained that the authority of constitutional courts to take action for contempt is meant to ensure the smooth functioning of the courts, not to shield judges from criticism. The Constitution grants authority to the Supreme Court and high courts through Articles 129 and 215 to penalize contempt, with the operational procedures outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act of 1971). What is Contempt of Court? Contempt of court is a legal concept that seeks to protect the dignity and authority of the judicial system. In India, contempt of court is addressed under the Act of 1971, which defines and prescribes punishment for contemptuous actions. The primary objective is to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process, ensuring that the judiciary's authority is respected and upheld. However, the interpretation and application of contempt laws often raise concerns about potential infringement on freedom of expression, leading to a delicate balance that must be maintained. What are the Types of Contempt of Court? Contempt of court in India can be broadly categorized into two types: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971, Civil contempt refers to willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, or other processes of a court, whereas criminal contempt involves actions that scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court. Under Section 2(c) of the Act of 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— (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; What are the Defences Available in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? Innocent Publication: Under Section 3 if the persons so publishing had at the time of its publication no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending, the publication is described as “innocent”. Fair and Accurate Report of Judicial Proceeding: Under Section 4 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. Fair Criticism: Under Section 5 it is the privileged right of the Indian citizen to believe what he considers to be true and to speak out his mind. Complaint Against Presiding Officer: Under Section 6 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. Truth as a Defence: Section 13 enables the Court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceedings if it is public interest or bona fide. Apology: Proviso to Section 12(1) says that the accused may be discharged, or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. What is the Current Scenario of Contempt of Court? In April 2018, a report from the Law Commission revealed that high courts had 568 pending criminal contempt cases and 96,310 civil cases. On April 10, 2018, the Supreme Court had 683 civil contempt cases and 15 criminal contempt cases awaiting resolution. Conclusion The Act of 1971 requires careful scrutiny and, if necessary, reform to address the ambiguities and concerns that have been raised over the years. The judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of democracy, including freedom of expression, will be crucial in navigating the delicate equilibrium between protecting the court's authority and preserving citizens' rights in the years to come. Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact us!