Contempt of Court refers to actions that disrespect or disobey a court's authority, undermining its

dignity and functionality. It can manifest as either direct contempt, occurring in the presence of the
court, or indirect contempt, involving disobedience to court orders outside the courtroom.

In India, the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines and regulates contempt, categorising it into
civil and criminal contempt. This legislation aims to uphold the rule of law and ensure the judiciary's
independence, allowing courts to impose penalties for acts that obstruct justice or disregard court
orders.

What is Contempt of court?

In the Indian Judiciary, Contempt refers to the offence of showing disrespect to the dignity or
authority of a court. Contempt of court is any behaviour or wrongdoing that conflicts with or
challenges the authority, integrity, and superiority of the court. It may include failure to comply with
requests, witness tampering, withdrawing evidence, or defying court orders. The Contempt of Courts
Act 1971 was established following the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee.

Contempt of Court Types

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 categorises contempt into two types: Civil Contempt, which
involves the willful disobedience of court orders, and Criminal Contempt, which includes actions
that undermine the authority or dignity of the court.

 Civil Contempt: Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Act 1971 defines civil contempt as wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or
wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court

 Criminal Contempt: Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971defines criminal
contempt as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which:

o scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or

o prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or

o interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

Contempt of Court Punishment

A person found guilty of contempt of court can be sentenced to simple imprisonment for up to six
months or fined up to two thousand rupees, or both. However, if the individual offers an apology
that satisfies the court, the punishment may be waived, or the person may be released.

 Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts: Every High Court shall have
the power to punish contempt of subordinate courts.

 In the case of criminal contempt, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on
its motion or a motion made by the Advocate-General or any other person, with the consent
in writing of the Advocate-General.
  Amendment to Contempt of Courts Act 1971: The 2006 amendment to the Contempt of
Courts Act 1971 specifies that the court can impose a penalty for contempt only if it
determines that the act significantly disrupts or is likely to disrupt the proper administration
of justice significantly.

Contempt of Court by Advocates

Advocates are central to the judicial process, representing clients, presenting legal arguments, and
ensuring that justice is delivered. While they are indispensable to the system, their actions and
conduct are also subject to legal scrutiny, especially if their behavior undermines the dignity of the
court or disrupts the judicial process.

1. Advocates Scandalizing the Court or Judges

One of the primary ways advocates can be guilty of contempt is by making statements that
scandalize the court or disrespect the judiciary. This includes disrespectful comments, making
unsubstantiated allegations against judges, or making statements that bring the court into
disrepute. Such actions undermine the trust that the public places in the judicial system, and
therefore, contempt charges are imposed.

In the case of In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), the Supreme Court dealt with contempt proceedings
against the writer and activist Arundhati Roy for making defamatory remarks about the judiciary
and the judges. Though she was not an advocate, the case established the principle that criticism of
judicial actions or personal attacks on judges can amount to contempt. While the case did not
involve an advocate, it showed that such behavior, especially by professionals in the legal field,
would also attract legal consequences.

Key Takeaways:

 Advocates must refrain from making remarks that undermine the independence and
integrity of the judiciary.

 Any defamatory or false statements about judges, if intended to scandalize the court, may
lead to contempt proceedings.

2. Disobeying Court Orders: Civil Contempt

An advocate can also be charged with civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders. Civil
contempt is defined as the willful disobedience of a court order or judgment. Advocates, being
officers of the court, have an obligation to respect and enforce judicial orders. Failure to do so,
either by neglect or intention, constitutes contempt.

For instance, in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Delhi High Court dealt with a case of
contempt involving an advocate who failed to comply with a court order. The court emphasized that
an advocate's primary responsibility is to uphold the orders of the court, and failure to do so was
tantamount to contempt. This case reinforced the need for lawyers to be diligent in adhering to
court orders to ensure that justice is delivered.

Key Takeaways:

 Civil contempt charges may arise if an advocate disregards a court order.

 Advocates are expected to act in good faith and comply with all judicial directions in a timely
manner.
3. Advocates Disrupting Court Proceedings

Advocates can also be charged with contempt if their actions disrupt court proceedings. This can
include deliberate obstruction of the proceedings, using disrespectful language in the courtroom, or
creating disturbances that prevent the court from functioning efficiently. An advocate's role is to
facilitate the smooth functioning of legal processes, and any behavior that disrupts or hinders this
process can be penalized under contempt law.

In K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court took a strong stance on advocate
misconduct in the courtroom. The Court held that even though advocates have the right to argue
and disagree with judgments, they must do so respectfully and without causing a disruption or
disturbance in the court. An advocate’s behavior should always align with the dignity and decorum
of the courtroom.

Key Takeaways:

 Advocates are expected to maintain decorum and respect for the court at all times.

 Disruptive behavior or unprofessional conduct can lead to contempt charges.

Contempt of Court by Judges

While judges hold a position of immense power and authority within the judicial system, they are
not immune to contempt of court charges. Judicial conduct, like that of advocates, must adhere to
the highest standards of integrity and impartiality. Judges are expected to uphold the rule of law and
maintain the respect and dignity of the judicial system.

1. Judicial Misconduct Leading to Contempt

Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge engages in behavior that violates judicial ethics or abuses
their power. A judge who makes biased decisions, engages in corruption, or deliberately obstructs
justice can be charged with contempt. Though judges enjoy judicial immunity, their conduct is not
above scrutiny, especially when it comes to misusing their powers or taking actions that undermine
the public trust in the judicial system.

A landmark case involving judicial misconduct is In re: Justice C.S. Karnan (2017). Justice Karnan, a
sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, was found guilty of contempt after he made unfounded
allegations of corruption against other judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court. His actions
were seen as bringing the judiciary into disrepute. The Supreme Court, in a rare move, sentenced
Justice Karnan to six months imprisonment for contempt. This case established that even judges are
not beyond the reach of contempt of court if their actions damage the integrity of the judiciary.

Key Takeaways:

 Judges who engage in misconduct or undermine the credibility of the judiciary can be held
in contempt.

 Judicial immunity does not protect judges from contempt for disrespecting the judicial
system.

2. Scandalizing the Court by Judges

In State of Gujarat v. Shantilal (2002), the Supreme Court held that judges must avoid making
public comments that could negatively impact the administration of justice. Although judicial
independence must be protected, judges must refrain from personal attacks on other judges or the
judicial system as a whole. Such actions may amount to contempt.

Key Takeaways:

 Judges should refrain from publicly criticizing fellow judges or undermining the judicial
system.

 Publicly made statements that scandalize the judiciary could result in contempt proceedings
against judges.

3. Failure to Act Impartially and Delays in Judgments

Judges are also required to act impartially and timely in delivering judgments. Excessive delays in
judgment delivery or bias in decision-making can compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings
and may attract contempt proceedings. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the court
ruled that judges must exercise their authority with due responsibility and ensure that their actions
do not compromise the fairness of a trial or ongoing legal proceedings.

Key Takeaways:

 A judge’s delay in delivering judgments or failure to act impartially can be grounds for
contempt.

 Judges must adhere to the principles of timeliness, objectivity, and fairness in judicial
proceedings.

Judicial Balance: Freedom of Speech vs. Contempt

One of the ongoing challenges in contempt law is the balance between freedom of speech and the
authority of the judiciary. While the public, including advocates, should have the right to criticize
judicial decisions, they must be careful not to scandalize the court or engage in defamation. In K.K.
Verma v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court reinforced the notion that criticism of judicial
decisions is permissible, but disrespecting the judiciary or engaging in personal attacks on judges
crosses the line into contempt.

Judicial bodies must also balance judicial independence with the necessity of accountability. The
judiciary must be able to function without fear of unwarranted criticism, but it also must maintain
mechanisms to deal with misconduct, even by judges themselves, to preserve the public trust in the
system.

Conclusion
Contempt of court is a critical tool to protect the integrity and dignity of the judiciary. Both
advocates and judges are integral to the judicial process and, as such, must adhere to the highest
standards of conduct. Advocates can commit contempt by disobeying court orders, disrespecting
the court, or scandalizing the judiciary. Similarly, judges must uphold the impartiality of their
position and avoid actions that undermine public confidence or the smooth functioning of the court.

While the judiciary is often seen as an autonomous institution, it is not immune to contempt. The
cases of In re: Justice C.S. Karnan (2017) and Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (1997) are testament
to the fact that misconduct by judicial officers or failure to comply with court orders can have
serious consequences.

Ultimately, contempt laws serve to protect the judicial process and ensure that the rule of law is
upheld. By holding advocates and judges accountable for their actions, these laws reinforce the
public’s trust in the justice system, ensuring that it remains fair, impartial, and effective.