HISTORICAL VIEW ON CONTEMPT OF COURT
INTRODUCTION
“The term ‘contempt of court' is a generic word that describes behaviour in connection to specific happenings in a judicial court that tries downplay the systemic methods or prevent citizens from using it to resolve their disputes.” In the instance of Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., Lord Diplock provided this concept in his opinion.
Contempt of Court is defined as misconduct or mischief towards a legal court, which means that we willfully fail to obey a court order or disrespect legal authority. If the contemnor is found liable for contempt of court, the judge has the authority to impose punishments such as fines or to imprison him for a period of time.
This word can also refer to the court proceeding's ability to set its own boundaries.As we all know, all judges in courts have the authority to impose judicial processes that limit their ability to make any judicial proceeding, and anything that restricts or prohibits them from doing so is considered contempt of court.
Halsbury, Oswald, and Black Odgers have also provided a description of contempt of court, as well as discussing its misuse and incorrect interpretation, as well as its extensive scope.
In India, the idea of contempt of court is defined by Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that essentially portrays it as civil or criminal contempt.
The Indian Constitution has two articles that deal with contempt of court: Article 129 and Article 142.
Also why history? I firmly believe that history helps us to not forget the past and more importantly, not forget the lessons it taught us for the future. Since it endows us with the power to analyse and examine the obstacles of the previous times, it gives us a critique and cautious point of view to tackle the current and future obstacles. This allows us to identify similar situations that would instead go unspotted in the present. It is stated that whomever has power over the past has influence over the future. Our perspective on history influences how we interpret the present, and thus what solutions we provide to current challenges. The study of significant past happenings that had a major impact during then and impacted in the riddance or inclusion of specific behaviours that constitute our society in the present is known as history. When people are informed about what happened in the past, they tend to do better. Knowing something's history allows you to move forward in life and make adjustments to shape your future into whatever you want it to be.
Learning about history allows us to gain a better understanding of the humanities' own reflection and what is good and what is terrible about it. This is similar to a diary in that people, specifically historians, just documented what they saw and what appeared to produce a huge shift in society, and we happen to be reading it a few years later. Because it makes sense and has been scientifically demonstrated, I think historians wrote historical truth.
HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN ENGLAND
The history of common law, which is the origin of today's concept of contempt derives, is full of depth and variations. The term "contempt of Court" (contemptus curiae) has been used in English law for a decade. The legislation gave it the ability to enforce order within its walls and exercise punitive measures on those who defied its orders.
Over decades, the law of contempt of court has evolved as a way for courts to intervene to thwart or penalize behaviour that hinders, predisposes, or mistreats the management of justice, whether in a single case or in general. In the legislation of the first part of the Twelfth Century, the concept of disdain of the King is mentioned as a crime.
The laws of King Henry-I indicate contempt of the King's Writ. Contempt or disobedience of commands was mentioned in the same legislation as a principal monetary penalty. Contempt of Court was a recognised expression in England before mid-thirtieth century, and it was applied to suitors' defaults and unjust behaviour.
After studying cases from the thirteenth century, John Charles Fox came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of contempt trials outside of multiple instances of disrespect in court were prosecuted by charge in the usual process of law rather than summary process. There was no need for a jury trial if the contempt was admitted, and such instances of defiance were dealt with by sentencing after confession.
Attachment by Bill was the previous method of process, in which the prisoner was tried by jury unless he confessed.
. From the fourteenth century forward, the King Justices' competence to sentence criminal contempts summarily was confined to net severe offences, in the opinion of the Jurists, the crime took place in courtroom.. The summary jurisdiction was determined to apply to all acts of contempt, notwithstanding the doing in or out of courtroom.'
As a result, it appears that the English Law Courts possessed the authority to tackle defiance occurring in their presence summarily. A series of statutes were issued between 1402 and 1640, granting superior courts the authority to proceed summarily in certain situations against officers of the court, including jurors.
The Court of Chancery saw a significant growth in the law of contempt in the seventeenth century. The Writ of Attachment was used not only to oblige individuals to perform perfonnances in a specific suit, but also to deal with such grave violation of the administration of justice that the English Law Courts were not only to tackle.
The Writ of Attachment and the subsequent Summary Process become part of the Court's standard operating procedure. As a result of this evolution, the differentiation between criminal and civil contempt emerged. In the centuries preceding the twentieth century, the demarcation was not as clear as it was in the nineteenth.
On June 8, 1971, Lord Hailsham L. C. created a Committee, chaired by Lord Justice Phillimore, to explore whether the legislation relating to contempt of court needed to be changed. In December of 1974, the Committee submitted its report. There were a few broad conclusions and suggestions. On August 27, 1981, the bill was signed into law.