Unit III — Contempt of Court

“Judges, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion. But this does not mean they are above all criticism.” — Supreme Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988)

Types of Contempt

flowchart TD
    A[Contempt of Court - Sec 2a] --> B[Civil Contempt - Sec 2b]
    A --> C[Criminal Contempt - Sec 2c]
    B --> B1[Wilful disobedience of court order]
    B --> B2[Wilful breach of undertaking given to court]
    C --> C1[Scandalising the court]
    C --> C2[Prejudicing pending cases sub judice rule]
    C --> C3[Interfering with administration of justice]

Civil vs Criminal Contempt — Compared

Defences Available

flowchart TD
    D[Defences to Contempt] --> S3[Sec 3 - Innocent Publication]
    D --> S4[Sec 4 - Fair and Accurate Report of Proceedings]
    D --> S5[Sec 5 - Fair Criticism of Judgment]
    D --> S6[Sec 6 - Bona Fide Complaint to Higher Authority]
    D --> S7[Sec 7 - In-Camera Publication]
    D --> S13[Sec 13 - Truth + Public Interest - 2006 Amendment]

Sec 13 (added in 2006): Truth is now a valid defence — but only if the publication was also in the public interest. This reversed the older position where truth was no defence at all.

Contempt Procedure — Step by Step

flowchart TD
    Act[Alleged Contempt Act] --> Filing{Who Files?}
    Filing -- Suo Motu --> Court[HC or SC takes cognizance]
    Filing -- With AG Consent --> Court
    Court --> N[Issue Notice to Contemner - Sec 17]
    N --> Hear[Hearing]
    Hear --> Find{Guilty?}
    Find -- Yes --> Pun[Punishment u/s 12: Up to 6 months + Rs 2000 fine]
    Find -- No --> Disch[Discharge]
    Pun --> Apol{Apology tendered?}
    Apol -- Yes and Satisfactory --> Remit[Remit Punishment]
    Apol -- No --> Imp[Execute Sentence]

Constitutional Basis of Contempt Power

flowchart LR
    Cons[Constitution of India] --> A129[Art 129 - SC Inherent Contempt Power]
    Cons --> A215[Art 215 - HC Inherent Contempt Power]
    A129 --> Act[Contempt of Courts Act 1971]
    A215 --> Act
    Act --> Def[Sec 2 - Definitions]
    Act --> Pun[Sec 12 - Punishment]
    Act --> Lim[Sec 20 - Limitation: 1 year]

Landmark Cases

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: Mr. A, a politician, holds a press conference and says: “The Supreme Court judgment in Case X is completely wrong and is a result of judicial corruption. Our judges are puppets of the rich.” Is this contempt of court? (Frequently asked in KSLU)

I — Issue

Whether Mr. A’s public statement scandalising the Supreme Court constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether he has any valid defence?

R — Rule

• Section 2(c) — Criminal contempt includes any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise the court, or lowers the authority of any court.
• Section 5 — Fair criticism of a judgment after it is delivered is not contempt.
• Section 13 — Truth is a defence if it is also in the public interest.
• Sec 12 — Punishment: up to 6 months imprisonment or ₹2,000 fine, or both.

A — Analysis

Mr. A’s statement has two parts:

1. “Judgment is completely wrong” — This could be fair criticism under Sec 5 if it refers to the legal reasoning. Criticising a judgment is allowed.
2. “Result of judicial corruption” and “judges are puppets of the rich” — This goes far beyond fair criticism. It directly attacks the integrity of the judges without any factual basis. This scandalises the court and falls squarely under Sec 2(c).

The defence of truth under Sec 13 is not available because there is no evidence of actual corruption — it is a bare, unsubstantiated allegation. Refer to E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970) — similar political speech was held to be contempt.

C — Conclusion

Mr. A is guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Supreme Court can take suo motu cognizance (Art 129) and punish him with up to 6 months imprisonment and/or ₹2,000 fine. His defence of “fair criticism” fails because the allegation of corruption goes beyond criticism of the judgment to an attack on the institution itself.

📄 The full PDF bundle covers 5 more contempt problems — including the advocate-threatens-judge scenario (Vinay Chandra Mishra type), sub judice rule, and the in-camera proceedings problem. Get the bundle — ₹99