CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
(1) This Act may be called the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2) It extends to the whole of India :
Provided that it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent to which the provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt
(b) "civil contempt" means 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;
(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) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court ;
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding: or
&
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was enacted to define and limit the powers of courts in punishing contempt and to regulate the procedure for contempt proceedings. Section 2 of the Act provides essential definitions related to contempt, distinguishing between civil and criminal contempt.
Section 2 defines "contempt of court" and categorizes it into two types:- Civil Contempt: Defined under subsection (b) as 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.- Criminal Contempt: Defined under subsection (c) as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
The scope of Section 2 is broad, covering various actions that can be classified as contempt. It applies to both civil and criminal contexts, ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained.
Punishments for contempt can include simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, or a fine, or both, depending on the severity of the contempt.
This commentary provides a comprehensive overview of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, highlighting its definitions, scope, and implications in legal proceedings.
(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at the time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of
Subject to the provisions contained in Section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.
A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.
A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to-
(a) any other subordinate court, or
(b) the High Court to which it is subordinate
Explanation.-In this section "subordinate court" means any court subordinate to High Court.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is to say,-
(a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force;
(b) where the court, on grounds of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of information of the description which is published;
(c) where the court sits in chambers or in camera for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those proceedings;
&
Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any other defence which would have been a valid defence in any proceedings for contempt of court has ceased to-be available merely by reason of the provisions of this Act.
Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience, breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this Act.
Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was enacted to define and regulate the law of contempt in India. Section 10 specifically addresses the powers of High Courts to punish contempt of subordinate courts, thereby ensuring the integrity and authority of the judicial system.
Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, states that every High Court shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has in respect of contempt of itself. However, it includes a proviso that bars High Courts from taking cognizance of contempt if the alleged act constitutes an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The scope of Section 10 encompasses both civil and criminal contempt, allowing High Courts to address acts that undermine the authority of subordinate courts. However, it is limited by the proviso, which prevents overlap with IPC offences.
Punishments under Section 10 can include fines and imprisonment, depending on the severity of the contempt. The specific penalties are outlined in Section 12 of the Act.
This commentary provides a comprehensive overview of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, highlighting its significance in maintaining judicial authority and the legal framework surrounding contempt proceedings.
A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bonafide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
&nbs
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, delineates the procedures, essential elements, scope, and punishments related to civil and criminal contempt of court. It aims to uphold the dignity, authority, and functioning of the judiciary by penalizing acts of disobedience or disrespect towards court orders and judgments.
Section 12 empowers courts to punish acts of contempt, including wilful disobedience of court orders, with sanctions such as simple imprisonment for up to six months or a fine up to Rs. 2,000, or both. It also specifies procedures for initiating contempt proceedings, requirements for proof of wilful disobedience, and conditions under which contempt actions are barred or dismissed.
"Wilful Disobedience" - Essential for establishing contempt; mere non-compliance without intent does not suffice. The act must be deliberate with knowledge of the order [Mohammad Yusuf VS Prof. S. K. Sopori].
"Scope of Section 12" - Limited to whether the court’s directions have been obeyed; courts cannot review the merits or legality of the original order in contempt proceedings [Rupam Sinha VS State of Jharkhand].
"Punishment Limit" - Imprisonment cannot exceed six months, and fine cannot exceed Rs. 2,000; courts have discretion to impose lesser penalties or discharge the contemnor if justified .
"Proof of Disobedience" - The standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in criminal contempt; mere careless acts are insufficient [Ram Kishan VS Tarun Bajaj].
"Good Faith Apology" - Bona fide, unconditional apologies can be accepted to purge contempt, provided they demonstrate genuine remorse and are tendered at the earliest [00100054228].
"Willful Disobedience" - The act must be intentional; acts done under compelling circumstances or due to ignorance are generally not punishable [Dugi Mundain VS State Of Jharkhand].
"Jurisdiction and Procedure" - Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine contempt; proceedings are quasi-criminal and require strict adherence to procedural rules [G. Subbammal VS Ramani, Commissioner, Karur Municipality, Karur].
"Limitation" - Contempt petitions must typically be filed within one year from the date of the alleged act, but proceedings can be initiated suo motu beyond this period if justified [Kailash Prasad Yadav, son of Girdhari Yadav VS State of Jharkhand].
"Role of Court" - The court acts as both accuser and judge; it must exercise caution, ensuring that only deliberate acts of disobedience are penalized [K. Mallaiah VS Sandeep Kumar Sultania].
"No Automatic Punishment" - Disobedience, even if established, does not automatically lead to punishment; the element of wilfulness and intention is crucial [Dilip Kumar Singh Choudhary VS State of Jharkhand].
"Partial Compliance" - Acts of partial compliance do not necessarily constitute contempt if the order has been substantially obeyed; the court examines the intent and effort [Ramesh Chandra Jha VS State of Jharkhand].
"Legal Position on Non-compliance" - Non-compliance due to bona fide reasons or impossibility of execution may not attract contempt; courts differentiate between wilful disobedience and genuine inability [Payal Chemicals VS Central Coalfields Ltd. , Sri A. P. Singh And State Of Jharkhand].
"Contempt in the Face of Court" - Acts committed in the court’s presence, such as disrespect or disruption, are also punishable under Section 12 [Birendra Kumar Mishra VS State of Jharkhand].
"Suo Motu Power" - Courts can initiate contempt proceedings suo motu if acts amounting to contempt are observed, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding judicial authority [G. Subbammal VS Ramani, Commissioner, Karur Municipality, Karur].
"Discretion and Caution" - Courts must exercise their contempt powers with great caution, ensuring that acts are truly contemptuous and not mere technical violations [State of Orissa VS Sudha Singh].
"Legal Effect of Apology" - An apology, if genuine, can lead to discharge or reduction of punishment; however, courts are cautious to prevent misuse [00100054228].
"Distinction from Civil Disobedience" - Acts like non-payment of dues or non-compliance due to administrative reasons are not contempt unless wilful disobedience is proven [Dilip Kumar Singh Choudhary VS State of Jharkhand].
"Inherent Power" - The courts’ inherent power under Section 12 is vital for maintaining judicial discipline, but it must be exercised judiciously to prevent misuse [Rupam Sinha VS State of Jharkhand].
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a robust framework to uphold the authority of the judiciary through procedural safeguards and proportionate punishments. The emphasis remains on proving wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt, balancing the need for respect towards court orders with safeguarding individual rights and procedural fairness.
Note: The references cited are based on the provided sources and case law summaries, ensuring a comprehensive yet concise legal analysis.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall -
(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged;
(b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;
(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and
(d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person
Introduction- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Section 14, governs contempt of court committed in the presence or in the view of a court, and sets out the procedure, safeguards, and punishments for such contempt in both High Courts and the Supreme Court. It also recognises the distinction between “contempt in the face of the court” (14(1)) and other forms of contempt (14(2) and beyond), prescribing procedural steps, including notice, defense, and potential transfer of trial to another judge. References reflect a range of application across judicial contexts and illustrate the Act’s central tenets. [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN][Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya][ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE]
What Section Says- Contempt in the face of the Court (Section 14(1)) – Contempt that occurs in the presence or hearing of the court may be dealt with immediately, including detention and formal proceedings with notice and a defense. [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN]- Contempt in view or presence and “in the view of the Court” – Courts have treated incidents seen or witnessed by judges as contempt in the presence of the court, justifying swift action to preserve dignity and the administration of justice. [02200012774][ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE]- Contempt in the face of the Court – The statute contemplates detention, informing the contemnor of charges, an opportunity to defend, and a possible order of punishment or discharge. [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Contempt in other cases under Section 15 – For criminal contempt not in the face of the court, Section 15 governs cognizance on motion by the AG or other authorized persons; the framework requires adherence to statutory prerequisites, including consent where required. [01300015038][STATE OF GUJARAT VS S. O. TRIVEDI]- Transfer and trial by another Judge (14(2)) – If the contemnor applies, the court may transfer the charge to another Judge for trial, preserving the integrity of proceedings. [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Detention pending determination (14(4)) – The court may detain the contemnor in custody during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, with bail on appropriate conditions. [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Procedure and natural justice – While 14 contemplates prompt action in appropriate cases, it also requires notice and an opportunity to defend to satisfy natural justice. [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN][Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Distinction from impurity of evidence or other acts – The Act recognises “contempt in the face of the Court” and distinguishes it from other acts that may burden the administration of justice; the latter may fall under other sections if applicable. [SADHNA UPADHYAYA VS STATE OF U P ][S. A. Rajan & Another VS A. Venkatesan]
Essential ingredients- Presence in court – The core ingredient for “contempt in the face of the Court” is that the act occurs in the court’s presence or in its hearing, witnessed by the judge(s). [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN][02200012774]- Interference with administration of justice – The contemnor’s acts must scandalize, lower, or interfere with the due course of justice; mere disagreement or criticism is not automatically contempt. [S. A. Rajan & Another VS A. Venkatesan][02100044741]- Willful disobedience or misbehavior – The conduct must amount to willful disobedience, contumacious behavior, or actions that disrupt proceedings or undermine court authority. [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani][In Re : Mr. Mathews Nedumpara VS . ]- Notice and opportunity to defend – Even in face-of-court cases, the contemnor is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, except in truly exceptional incidents dealt with summarily. [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya][SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN]- Dignity and decorum of the judiciary – A key lens for assessing contempt is the preservation of the Court’s dignity, majesty, and independence; attacks on judges or the judiciary are treated seriously. [In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ][Haridwar Pandey VS State of Bihar]- Apology and contrition – When allowed, apologies must be unconditional and genuine; conditional or evasive apologies may be rejected, with consequences for the contemnor. [Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra & others][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ]
Scope of Section- Applicability to High Courts and Supreme Court – Section 14 applies to contempt in the face of High Courts and the Supreme Court; it also interacts with other statutory provisions in the Constitution and with the powers of higher courts. [00100054056][ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE]- Civil vs criminal contempt – Section 14 contemplates criminal contempt in the face of the court, while other forms of contempt may be addressed under Section 15 or related mechanisms; the line between civil and criminal contempt often guides the procedural approach. [00100054056][SADHNA UPADHYAYA VS STATE OF U P ]- Role of other authorities and tribunals – While Section 14 governs contempt in courts, tribunals and other authorities have their own contours, though similar principles may apply when contempt is in view of a court that is overseeing the matter. [Mehmood Pracha VS Central Administrative Tribunal]- Jurisdictional considerations – The Section 14 framework can interact with broader jurisdictional questions (e.g., consent under Section 15; transfer under 14(2)); courts must respect constitutional boundaries and procedural prerequisites. [01300015038][Shyamlal Vyas VS Inderchand Jain]
Punishment for Section- Ranges of punishment – Imprisonment and fines are typical remedies; examples include four months’ simple imprisonment with a fine (Rs. 2,000) and, in other instances, up to six months with fines; penalties vary by facts and gravity. [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ][Haridwar Pandey VS State of Bihar]- Detention pending charge – The court may detain the contemnor during the proceedings under 14(4), with bail on suitable conditions. [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Deterrent sentencing in high-credibility cases – Courts have imposed deterrent punishments (e.g., imprisonment and fines) to preserve judicial dignity when the contemnor is a lawyer or a party who undermined proceedings. [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ]- Apology-related consequences – A failure to offer a genuine, unconditional apology may influence sentencing or reinforcement of punitive measures. [Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra & others]
Legal Comments- "Face-of-Court" threshold - Contempt in the face of the Court requires action in the presence/hearing of the Judge, with potential on-the-spot handling to protect the dignity of the judiciary. - [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN]- "In presence vs. in view" distinction - Several decisions treat acts witnessed by the court as contempt in its presence or view, allowing swift, summary responses in appropriate cases. - [02200012774]- "14(2) – transfer to another Judge" - The court may order that contempt proceedings be tried by a different Judge if the contemnor requests, ensuring fairness and preventing bias or influence on the presiding Judge. - [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- "Detention and bail" - Section 14 authorises detention pending determination, with bail on conditions, underscoring the seriousness and immediacy of contempts observed in court. - [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- "Notice and defense" - Even in incidents in the court’s presence, the contemnor is entitled to formal notice and an opportunity to defend, upholding natural justice. - [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- "Penalty spectrum" - Penalties range from imprisonment to fines, with variations (1–6 months, and fines up to Rs 2,000) depending on the case; examples illustrate the spectrum. - [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ][Haridwar Pandey VS State of Bihar]- "Apology dynamics" - An unconditional apology is crucial; hollow or conditional apologies may be rejected, reflecting the need for genuine contrition. - [Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra & others][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ]- "Civil vs criminal contempt" - The Act recognises distinctions and appropriate mechanisms for civil and criminal contempt, with cross-references to Section 15 and related provisions. - [00100054056][SADHNA UPADHYAYA VS STATE OF U P ]- "Perjury and false affidavits" - Filing false affidavits or false statements on oath may constitute contempt in the face of the Court and can trigger the contempt process. - [Court On Its Own Motion And Handu Bhagat VS State Of Jharkhand]- "Publication and communication" - Not all communications (e.g., distant or informal conversations) automatically amount to contempt; publication must be in a manner that subjects the court to disrespect or interference. - [ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE]- "Ex facie contempt" - Some contempts are ex facie curiae (in plain sight of the court) and are cognizable under Section 14, even if formal notice is not strictly required in every instance; such cases may be treated as immediate contempts. - [SADHNA UPADHYAYA VS STATE OF U P ]- "Consent for private petitions under Section 15" - For contempt petitions not in the face of the Court (Section 15), consent of the Advocate General is required in many contexts; lack of consent can render a petition untenable. - [STATE OF GUJARAT VS S. O. TRIVEDI]- "Role of lawyers and dignity of the Bar" - Lawyers are not immunised from contempt; gross contempt by counsel can lead to serious penalties, reflecting the seriousness of upholding court dignity. - [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani]- "Judicial decorum and governance" - Instances such as shouting in court, manhandling, or denigrating judges have repeatedly resulted in contempt findings and punitive orders, reinforcing decorum and majesty of the judiciary. - [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani][Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya][In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ]- "Recall and compliance cases" - Courts have grappled with whether acts like recall applications or non-compliance amount to contempt; results vary with context, emphasizing the need for case-specific analysis. - [S. A. Rajan & Another VS A. Venkatesan][Shyamlal Vyas VS Inderchand Jain]- "Consent and suo motu action" - While courts can act suo motu in contempt, the proper governance of Section 15 requires AG consent in certain contexts, avoiding improvised or unauthorized actions. - [STATE OF GUJARAT VS S. O. TRIVEDI][Shyamlal Vyas VS Inderchand Jain]- "Summary vs. full hearing" - In appropriate face-of-court contempts, summary handling is permissible to preserve court dignity; in other cases, formal procedures including defense and evidence are needed. - [02200012774][Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- "Remedial and teaching function" - The judiciary’s handling of contempt cases often emphasizes deterrence, reform, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. - [Haridwar Pandey VS State of Bihar][President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani]
Notes on Source Utilisation- The bullet points synthesize themes across multiple decisions cited in the provided sources, focusing on Section 14’s face-of-court contours, procedural safeguards, and penalties. Each point includes a referenced source in square brackets, as requested.
Selected Source References (illustrative)- Contempt in the face of the Court; notice and defense requirements; transfer to another Judge: [SUO MOTU VS C. K. MOHANAN], [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- Immediate handling of face-of-court incidents; “in view” or “in presence” jurisprudence: [02200012774]- Detention and bail; detention pending trial: [Sheikhan Fadiah Saad Al Abduyllah Al Sabah VS Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya]- False affidavits and perjury as contempt: [Court On Its Own Motion And Handu Bhagat VS State Of Jharkhand]- Apology standards; unconditional vs conditional: [Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra & others], [In The Matter Of Anil Panjwani VS N. R. ]- Civil vs criminal contempt; consent for private motions under Section 15: [STATE OF GUJARAT VS S. O. TRIVEDI], [S. A. Rajan & Another VS A. Venkatesan]- Publication vs non-publication; telephonic communications jurisprudence: [ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE]- Deterrent sentencing in high-credibility contempt cases (lawyers, judges): [President Of India VS Nand Lal Balwani], [Haridwar Pandey VS State of Bihar]
If you’d like, I can reorganize these into a compact table or tailor the bullet points to a specific jurisdiction (Supreme Court vs a particular High Court) with citations aligned to that court’s jurisprudence.
(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, or
(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Unio
(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observations or remarks made by a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding a subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such Judge, Magistrate or other person against the order of judgment of the subordinate court.
(1) Notice of every proceeding under Section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the Court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise.
(2) The notice shall be accompanied.-
(a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded; and
(b) in the case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference.
(3) The Court may, if it is satisfied that a person charged under Section 15 is likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the attachment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable.
(4) Ever
(1) Every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.
(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt -
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court :
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the Appellate Court may order that-
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was enacted to define and limit the powers of courts in punishing contempt and to regulate the procedure for contempt proceedings. Section 19 specifically addresses the right to appeal against orders made in contempt proceedings.
Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. However, it specifies that appeals are only maintainable against orders imposing punishment for contempt.
The scope of Section 19 is limited to punitive orders. It does not extend to orders that merely dismiss contempt petitions or refuse to initiate contempt proceedings. The section emphasizes that the right to appeal is contingent upon the imposition of punishment.
Punishments under the Contempt of Courts Act can include fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature and severity of the contempt. However, if no punishment is imposed, the appeal is not maintainable.
This commentary provides an overview of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, highlighting its essential features, scope, and the legal implications of its provisions.
No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply in relation to contempt of Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts, by whatever name known, for the administration of justice, established under the law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts.
The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952), is hereby repealed.
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
AI Assistant
