ISSUES PERTAINING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT,1971
According to THE GAZZETE OF INDIA: -
(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) “criminal contempt” means 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— (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
​
GENERAL DEFINITION
As beautifully written by Smita Chakraburtty in 2017, “Contempt is the power of the court to protect its own majesty and respect. This power is inherent and the power is recognized in the constitution of the high court and the Supreme Court. The power is regulated but not restricted in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971”, is one of the most appropriate description of the act according to its context in today’s society
The contempt law somewhat has monarchial origins. Its continuance is in direct conflict with the ideals of a democratic society. Contempt of court in also in direct interference with freedom of speech and expression provided in Art 19(1)(a), which being a fundamental right holds more value than any other article, though the need of it is by some means understandable as A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. It is the only official tool that the courts have to uphold their dignity in the judiciary. In recent times this law has been misused on a massive basis by judicial officers, as this has not just been used to protect the dignity of the judicial officers but also to satisfy the ego of some judges, plus judges having the sole proprietary authority to decide if their dignity has been harmed can be called out as monarchial. This law has been abolished in many democratic countries due to the same reason, contempt has practically become obsolete in foreign democracies, for e.g.- Canada ties its test for contempt to real, substantial and immediate dangers to the administration, American courts also no longer use the law of contempt in response to comments on judges or legal matters, In England, too, the legal position has evolved.The offence of contempt of courts was established in common law, and can also be traced to colonial legislation, with the earliest recorded penalties contained in the Regulating Act of 1773. In the 20th century though the law has evolved a lot but still contains some monarchial aspect and restricts the freedom of speech and expression.
​