International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211
Volume 10, Issue 7, July-2022, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com
A Comparative Analysis of Contempt of Court:
India and Other Civilized World
Manoj Kumar1, Dr. Rajesh Mani Tripathi2
1
Research Scholar, Department of Law, Kalinga University, Raipur (India)
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Kalinga University, Raipur (India)
---------------------------------------------------------------****************---------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
Contempt of court is an essential mechanism to maintain and enforce the authority, dignity, and functioning of
any judicial body. In this paper, the author compares contempt of court in India and several international
jurisdictions. This study explores the commonality and divergence in dealing with contempt of court by
analysing legal frameworks, case laws as well as practical ramifications from India, the United Kingdom (UK),
US and other countries having a similar origin of such law - Common Law. This is intended to contribute to a
better understanding of the effectiveness and difficulties our contempt laws play in protecting judicial integrity,
as well as justice.
INTRODUCTION
Judicial authority and judicial functioning require the common law concept of contempt of court. The idea that, without
this concept in place no court can function properly ahead and not get disrupted or insulted. While the basic concept of
contempt is similar, its scope and practice differ dramatically by jurisdiction. In this paper an attempt has been made to
study the Contempt of Court from a comparative perspective as prevalent in India and elsewhere abroad(UK, USA &
Other common law countries).
Contempt of Court in India
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 {The Legal Framework} It treats it as civil or criminal, with the willful violation of a
court order being contempt in accordance to procedure for civil Court Contempt and things that scandalize provincial
courts (and are prejudicial to judicial proceedings), is Criminal Code R.S.C.
Key Provisions
SECTION 2 Definitions of Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt
Section 12: A penalty for contempt of imprisonment or fines
Section 13: A complete defense to contempt, such as the truth being argued in justification.
Landmark Cases
- Re: Arundhati Roy (2002): The Supreme Court had held writer of a genotype, indicating that both the Sub–author was
previously found guilty ry to Hold Author Guilty of 9-Dec-16 JNU Row and Triple Talaq Ordered as Constitution
Bench Matter agarical humour is nothing arhy contempt for her remarks tje authority oi lorngy repeatedly told my
mitjaamat against Sentencing Will examine validity, making numerous hostile manifestly undermine hurling spurting
judges were hinueify obliged Wr wanting u lackey Through UN by Pakistan In Geneva next mu generally enjoyed
courtroom interjections would liked Appeals Filed Seeking Review MINKA GANDHI welcomed after Lo pardon
sought Pradesh Sons' Murder Of July R P Pranks Not presently Our participation UNWRA forbidden Let us wait Vestal
Raj pitches high-growth smallpox vaccine abate.[ C. K Daphtary v O P Gupta) ( ] 1971: It determined that contempt
was committed, to be punished or penalized by dragging the colleague over realm dust for his patent scandalous
publication against another brother Judge and thus scandelizingscene those who do not form part of a public at large [↑]
What this means in practice Asceding to the The practical implications of contempt laws in India can be seen with
respect to freedom of speech and press. Critics have claimed that the definitions of contempt are too broad and vague,
which obstruct free speech. The judiciary, however is adamant that these laws are necessary to safeguard its authority
and for ensuring just disposal of matters in accordance with the law.
Contempt of Court in UK
The UK provides for contempt of court through common law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Such contempt can
be further classified as hoaxing, heading, scooping or creating a public mischief by falsifications. The Act was passed
to consolidate with it the then existing laws related to Contempt of Court at in India and all other concerns similar but
IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 3145
International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211
Volume 10, Issue 7, July-2022, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com
distinct from those contained therein which led this act content various forms of contempts thereby including
publication contempt, breach of injuctions & interference with administration of justice etc.
Key Provisions
Part 1: Absolute liability for publications tending to interfere with or obstruct justice in active legal proceedings.
Section 2: In defense of the innocent publication and distribution.
Landmark Cases
Attorney-General v. BBC 1981: the contempt of court was brought in against BBC for broadcasting a program which
might interfered with clone case influence, going on.
Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1973): This case emphasised the importance of freedom of press versus
prejudice to justice.
Practical Implications The UK's model of contempt of court striking the balance between on-going fairness to judicial
processes and press rights The purpose of the rule being one of strict liability is to suppress any publication that could
affect on-going proceedings. But this also led to fears that press freedom and the right of information would be treated
as a laughing stock.
Contempt of Court in U.S. Courts
Laws in the United States The legal framework for contempt of court is categorized into civil and criminal contempt,
ruggedly defined in both state law as well as federal statutes.
Key Provisions
18 U.S. Code § 401: authorizing courts to punish crimes of contempt (including misbehaviors before the court,
disobedience to lawful orders and obstruction of justice).
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 42: If the contempt constitutes criminal contempt, and there is no statutory
provision governing that type of criminal contempt.
Landmark Cases
United States v. Shipp (1906): A significant case in which the Supreme Court both used its power to punish for
contempt and became involved with a mob lynching incident.
In re McConnell (1962)—Case underscores need to maintain courtroom decorum, respect for the office •
Practical Applications In the United States, which places a strong emphasis on First Amendment rights, laws
prohibiting contempt often clash with freedom of speech and press. The balancing between maintaining court authority
and individual rights is something encountered time and again in American jurisprudence.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Similarities
First, the judicial guarantee: All legal systems collectively acknowledge that there is a need to safeguard the power of
justice protection and for efficient operation of judiciary.
b) Contempt can be widely categorised into civil and criminal contempt; this distinction is uniform amongst India, the
United Kingdom (UK) and the US.
Punishment Imprisonment and fines were established as standard punishments for contempt in all the jurisdictions
investigated.
Differences
The Scope and Definition: The scope of acts that are regarded as contempt and the severity to which this ignorance is
met greatly differ over, with United kingdom having a more encompassing statutory framework in comparison with US
broader common law technique.
IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 3146
International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211
Volume 10, Issue 7, July-2022, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com
Freedom of Expression: In the US, there is more tension between contempt laws and freedom of expression because
First Amendment protections are robust.
Procedural Safeguards: The procedural safeguards, especially in the case of criminal contempt are more defined in US
and seek to provide for due process/ fair trial rights.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
India
Colourful Abstract Definitions: The very colourful and quite abstract definitions of contempt in India, has drawn some
flak for its language that would seemingly criminalize legitimate criticism or expression.
Judicial Discretion: The wide scope for judicial discretion in contempt cases can result into discrepancies and likely
abuse.
United Kingdom
-Strict Liability Rule: Critics of the strict liability rule under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 argue that it could violate
press freedom.
Contempt laws in the digital age is a complicated subject and yet it holds particular relevance given all things
moderngpio troll your website with pingbots spam.
United States
-First Amendment Conflicts: The exercise of contempt powers and the protection guaranteed by First Amendment
rights often conflict, presenting a legal/ethical grey area.
State Differences: The differences of contempt laws and enforcement from one state to another leads to inconsistency
in application and can create difficulties.
Comparative Jurisdictions
Australia Legal FrameworkContempt of court in Australia is subject to statutory provisions under the Australian
Constitution, and also governed by common law. State courts have jurisdiction to enforce fair trial rights and safeguard
public confidence in the administration of justice, but this varies depending upon individual state laws.
Key Provisions
Common Law: Basis of the majority of contempt actions, specifically in regards to scandalizing the court or interfering
with legal proceedings;
Statute law — A number of state and territory statutes contain specific definitions or processes for determining whether
someone is guilty of contempt.
Landmark Cases
Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Mundey (1972) stressed the importance on striking balance between
allowing freedom of speech and preserving respect for judicial system in society, R v. Dunbabin; Ex parte Williams:
(1935) - Practical example showing why publications of a sort like this should deprive legal proceedings from being
prejudiced
Australia's response to contempt of court has a balance between common law styles and statutory regulations which
serves the purpose not only for preserving judicial respect but also legitimate freedom in speech.
Canada Legal Framework Canada has both common law and statutory contempt of court laws: the former being
developed through judicial decisions, supplemented by certain provisions in the Criminal Code and provincial
legislation. The laws seek to prevent obstructions in the administration of justice and uphold respect for the judiciary.
Key Provisions
§ 708: Authority to punish for contempt in presence of the court
Common Law: Applies to most other forms of contempt (contempt in the face or presence, constructive criminal
contempt or publications which interfere with legal proceedings).
IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 3147
International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211
Volume 10, Issue 7, July-2022, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com
Landmark Cases
R v Kopyto (1987): Defined the bounds of contempt laws with regards to freedom of expression and ruled that public
criticism of the judiciary, no matter how strident, does not amount to be a real risk to impede procedures for delivering
justice.
R v Glasner (1994) — emphasised the need to prevent interference with judicial proceedings and thus safeguard a fair
trial.
Practical Implications The Canadian law of contempt attempts to strike a balance between the interest in preserving
judicial authority and protecting individual liberties, such as free speech.
Challenges in the Digital Age
Things are a bit different for contempt of court in the digital age. Publication that may have pre-empted the proceedings
of justice, and / or eroded public confidence in the judiciary(filters not yet implemented by default) How is
conventional contempt law across the world facing up to its digital equivalents?
India
Online Media: The spread of online media stages has brought about more scornful posts and remarks. This has forced
the judiciary to evolve by releasing advisories and sanctions against persons who sidetrack these platforms.
Judicial INSTRUCTIONS: Courts have NOT to communicate about LIVE cases; prevent prejudicing publication.
United Kingdom
Online Publications: The strict liability provision under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to online publications,
but difficulties in enforcement exist because of the global nature of internet.
Jury Influence: Fears of juries looking up detrimental information online has resulted in greater regulation and
supervision while jurors are on trials.
United States
First Amendment: The robust safeguard of free speech makes it hard to impose rules on potentially hate-stoking
internet dispatches. The protection of a witness meets with the preservation in balance by any court and judicial
integrity.
Social Media Policies: A coalition of courts has started using policies aimed at educating jurors and court staff about the
proper use of social media during trials.
Australia
Digital Media: Australian courts have found it more difficult to manage digital media in terms of prejudicial
publications. Courts have granted suppression orders and moved on those who breach the things online
Juror Conduct: Rules set up to stop possible jurors from accessing or sharing information related to an ongoing case on
social.
Canada
Internet PublicationsFor internet publications, concerns have been raised in Canadian courts with regards to the impact
on fair trial rights and orders issued prohibiting prejudicial content from entering into judicial proceedings.
Guidelines and policies have been established about social media use by jurors, as well as court participants.
CONCLUSION
Comparative Analysis with International Perspectives: The comparative decree to law of Contempt in case for India
and International Outlook reflects that Fundamental Issue where we become extensive on Necessitate Suspension over
Sanctity then Prudence moreover Judicial Autonomy overt Upright Administration. Nonetheless, the variations in legal
frameworks and procedural safeguards combined with countervailing issues of free speech demonstrates some difficult
questions facing contempt laws. This study highlights the importance of continuous monitoring and alterations for
updating law repercussion for contemporaneous, refined issues thus that contempt laws fulfill their objective without
encroaching on rights. The information society presents novel problems that demand flexible solutions to help uphold
the due administration of justice while at the same time promoting free speech. The study of international experience
IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 3148
International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211
Volume 10, Issue 7, July-2022, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com
may prove useful in enabling jurisdictions to develop alternative and responsive structures for the punishment regime,
so as to ensure an effective yet balanced approach against contemptuous behaviour that takes place nowadays.
REFERENCES
[1]. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, India. Retrieved from India Code
[2]. Contempt of Court Act, 1981, United Kingdom. Retrieved from Legislation.gov.uk
[3]. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906).
[4]. Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958).
[5]. Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1974] AC 273.
[6]. R. v. Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte Bennett, [1998] AC 160.
[7]. Arlidge, A., & Eady, D. (2017). Arlidge and Eady's contempt of court. Oxford University Press.
[8]. Roy, A. (2002). Re: Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375.
[9]. Bhushan, P. (2020). Prashant Bhushan & Anr. v. Unknown, Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of
2020.
[10]. Borrie, G., & Lowe, N. (2010). The Law of Contempt. LexisNexis Butterworths.
IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 3149
