THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 =
INTRODUCTION ==
A long struggle from pre-colonial era for a strong judiciary has finally come to a successful end. The importance of an independent judiciary that is a resource ready to be dispensed from the hands of the public is quintessential to society’s well-being. It thus can be inferred that protection of the judiciary from societal evils is also vital to society’s development. Contempt of Court refers to any behavior or wrongdoing that conflicts with or challenges the authority, integrity, or the superiority of the Court or its powers, and may also mean the failure to comply with the Court’s demands, tampering with evidence or witnesses, willfully defying Court orders, or, obstruction of justice. Thus, The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, (CoC), aims at solving these barriers in the path of achieving justice.
DEFINITION ==
Contempt of court could be constituted by conduct that defies or reduces the Court authority or intends to disrespect or disregard the laws that govern society. Even interference with the process of justice could amount to contempt of court. Section 2(b) of CoC defines civil contempt of court as willful disobedience to the Court’s judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other processes of it. It also includes willful breach of an undertaking given to the court. Section 2(c) of CoC defines criminal contempt as publication of any matter or doing an act which is; Scandalous or Lowers Authority of the Court, Prejudice or Interference with the Due Course of Any Judicial Proceedings, Interfere or Obstructs the Administration of Justice. Since the law of Contempt is quasi-criminal, it may result in penal consequences and thus, it is important to protect the rights of a person against whom proceedings for contempt have been initiated. Thus, the act also provides certain defences under Section 3 to Section 8 and Section 13 of CoC.
==
UNDERSTANDING ==
The defences are divided as civil defences and criminal defences. Innocent publication and distribution of matter is a defence that could be pled by the defendant if there were no reasonable grounds to believe that proceedings were pending or if they were actually not pending. Another defence is fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings. This right is however generally limited to those judicial proceedings which are conducted in open court. Although this right does not extend to proceedings held in chambers or camera, Section 7 of CoC provides certain exceptions required for information purposes or for legal reasons. Fair criticism of judicial act, Bonafide complaint against presiding officers of the subordinate court, No substantial interference with due course of justice and truth, Defamation of judge personally are other exceptions. The aforementioned defences are for criminal contempt. For civil contempt the defences are different. A common defence is the non-willful disobedience or breach of the undertaking. There may also be issues with order itself; order passed without jurisdiction, order is vague and ambiguous, order involves more than one reasonable interpretation, compliance with order is impossible, absence of knowledge of order. Additionally, if alternative remedy is available then it must be used as contempt jurisdiction is an extraordinary one. Section 14 of the act deals with the procedure of contempt in the face of court of record, and Section 15 deals with procedure in cases that do not involve the above mentioned section. Section 129 provides that the Supreme Court and Section 215 provides that every High Court shall be a court of record. These courts will thus have all the powers of such court including to punish for its contempt and they can also deal with such matters summarily and can adapt their procedure. The courts are required to be just, fair and reasonable in their proceedings and each accused person must be given a fair trial. Contempt proceedings are neither civil proceedings nor criminal, but they are ‘sin genres’. Contempt in face of Supreme Court and High Courts vary from the same in subordinate courts. The procedure is governed differently due to the gravity of the circumstances and the resulting change in punishment. Different sections of the Coc and the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the same as there is a material difference in the method of proceedings of the case and its seriousness.
INTERPRETATION ==
Criminal contempt committed outside the court (other than in the face of court) is known as Constructive contempt and Section 15 of CoC deals with the same as already mentioned above. Section 15 (3) provides that every motion or reference shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. This section also bars private individuals from filing without the consent of the Advocate General as this saves the court's precious time and resources from being wasted in frivolous complaints. In cases of contempt committed outside the court, the contemnor is not present in the court and therefore a notice is to be served on him and Section 17 deals with this procedure. Section 20 of CoC mentioned the limitation period for the action of contempt as a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Section 12 of CoC deals with punishment for contempt of court. The High courts and Supreme Court have been given the power to punish someone for contempt of court with simple imprisonment, which can extend up to 6 months or with a fine which may extend to 2000 rupees or can be both. However, the accused may be discharged or punishment may be remitted in circumstances where they wish to make an apology. The court also has discretion on this matter. The convicted may also make an appeal against the orders of the High Court that punish them. (Before this act there was no statutory right of appeal but instead the High Court itself could grant the certificate under Article 134 of the Indian Constitution and if refused then the Supreme Court could entertain the appeal by granting special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India). This Act under Section 19 removes the discretion of the courts in granting this right to appeal. However, a judge still has discretion in determining the contempt and punishment. This has been a popular criticism of the act as it gives unchecked authority to judges. Most of the other criticisms involve a critique of the due process. Another popular criticism is that punishment pronounced may be too harsh. This is majorly due to loopholes in the definitions that lead to wide interpretations. However it is also important to note that this statute gives the Constitutional Court the wide power to restrict an individual’s fundamental rights to personal liberty (guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) for ‘scandalizing the court’ or willfully disobeying the court’s order, judgment, decree, and direction, etc. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006, distinguished between civil and criminal contempt. It also provided defenses against contempt charges, allowed courts to impose fines and imprisonment as punishment and recognized the extraordinary nature of this principle. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2012 expanded further on defences. Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court, the Arundhati Roy’s Case and the Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case are important to understand this delicate balance of the judiciary’s independence and citizen’s rights.