SUBMITTED BY : JEFF PACHEN

SUBMITTED TO : Prof. Loganayaki

TOPIC: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT IN INDIA
 INTRODUCTION
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient
to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or
defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court1. When a court decides that an action
constitutes contempt of court, it can issue an order that in the context of a court trial or hearing
declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority,
called "found" or "held" in contempt. That is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for
acts that disrupt the court's normal process. 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. A judge may impose sanctions such
as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a
process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare
someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

In India contempt of court is of two types:

1. Civil contempt: Under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, civil
contempt has been defined 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.
2. Criminal contempt: Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal
contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other
act whatsoever which:
 Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court,
or
 Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding, or

1
contempt: definition of contempt in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". Oxforddictionaries.com. 2014-08-
05. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
  Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.

Historical Background of the Act

In the ancient times, primarily it was conceived to be the duty of the King to administer Justice
by hearing litigation and in doing so he was directed to take the assistance of Councillors who
were to act assessors or adviser of the King. When the king himself could not preside over the
deliberations of the Court by reason of other avocations, it was directed that he should appoint a
Judge to act as his delegate along with Councillors.

King was fountain of justice, judicial system and code of conduct in all walks of life. Similarly,
whosoever disobeyed decisions or orders or of Court or dictates or Ordinance issued by King
was held to have committed contempt or Avman, or Utkraman, Ullanghan and was punished.
Along with the filing of the plaint the temporary injunction could be obtained and that was called
as Asedhuh an injection was to be obeyed by the defendant till he appeared and got it vacated. In
Katyayan Smriti (104 to 105) there is a mention that in such circumstances, in case an injection
was served on the dependent and it was disobeyed it was punishable. disobedience of the order
of Court was contempt and was punishable.

Introduction of Contempt law by Britisher in India

The present law relating to contempt of Court is however, based on the English law concept the
British courts from the earliest legal history assumed the power of contempt of court against who
obstructed the administration of justice
In England, the Courts of Record have inherent powers to punish the contempt itself and also the
Court subordinate to it since the advent of judicial system. The Superior Court being court of
Record has inherent power to punish contempt of itself and courts subordinate to it. Thus the
contempt power of the Superior Court does not base on any statutory enactment but on the
common law principle that the concept is inherent in every court of record.

The contempt of law introduced in British India by setting up of the Court of Record through a
charter of 1687 issued by the East India company for the establishment of Mayor's Court at
Madras. Thereafter charter of 1726 occupied and important places in the development of the
administration of justice in India. Before 1726, there was no uniform judicial system in all three
Presidency towns, for example Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. The Mayor court was
reconstituted in 1753 and thereafter also, it remained the court of Record having power to punish
for contempt of Court. Even prior to it, when after 1704, the court of Admiralty ceased to sit
regularly appeals from the Mayor's Court lay to the governor in Council. The admiralty court and
the governor in Council may also be taken as Court of record as they heard appeals from the
mayors court of record

In 1774, the Calcutta Mayor's Court was replaced by Supreme Court established under the
charge for granted in 1774 in 1st year and software regulating act 1773 in the Madras and
Bombay High Court continued till 1797 when they were superseded by the recorders court.
watch a court of record and it has power to punish for content there after the British Parliament
passes and act in 1893 The recorders court was a court of record and as such it had power to
punishcontempt

The Indian High Courts Act, 1861 replaced the Supreme Courts of Calcutta and Madras by
unification of Company's Court and Crowns Courts. The High Court was a Court of record, had
a power to punish for its Contempt.
The first Contempt of Court Act was enacted in the year 1926 which was repealed and replaced
by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act of 1952 made some notable changes, the Act
empowered the court of Judicial commissioner to punish the Contempt of court subordinate to it.
It was given to Jurisdiction to inquire into or try a Contempt of itself or any Court subordinate to
it.
However, the Contempt of Court Act, 1952 was not satisfactory as there were certain defects, for
example., The definition of Contempt of Court and defenses available to contemner etc. not
given.
There was no provision as to defenses of innocent Publication, fair and accurate report of judicial
proceedings, fair criticism of judicial decisions etc. Besides these defects, even the Act did not
contain any provision as to Contempt liability of the Judges and other persons acting Judicially.
The Act did not contain any provision to the procedure to be followed in the Contempt
proceeding and as to appeal in contempt cases. The above defects in the Act compelled the
Government to examine the existing Contempt law and to remove out the defects therein.
Accordingly on 1st April, 1960 a bill was introduced in Lok Sabha by Shri Bibhuti Bhushan
Dasgupta who amend the law relating to Contempt of Courts. After considering the Bill, the
Government realized need to Reform the law relating to Contempt of Court, and Committee was
set up by the Government under the Chairmanship of Shri H.N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor
General of India in July 1961. The entire law on the Contempt of Court was scrutinized by the
Committee and then the Committee submitted its report on 28 February 1963 to Lok Sabha. The
Bill was then referred to the joint select committee of the parliament. The Committee submitted
its report on 20 February 1970. The Bill was substantially altered in the light of the said effect
and thereafter, it enacted as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This act came into force on 24
December 1971 and repealed replaced the earlier Contempt of Court Act, 1952

The provisions of this Act extends to the whole 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 the content of Supreme Court. This Act is not exhaustive code Section 22 of
the Act provides that the provisions of this act shall be in addition and not in derogation
of the provisions of any other law relating to the Contempt of Courts. In this Act the
definition of term, "Contempt of Court" is along with important defenses. The Act makes
provisions in respect of liability of the Judges, Magistrates and other persons acting
Judicially. It makes elaborate provisions in respect of the procedures to be followed in the
Contempt proceeding and also in respect of the Appeal.

Watchdog of the Indian constitution, entrusted with the mighty task of dispensing justice in
the country, Judiciary of India forms one of the three main pillars of the union government.
Judiciary ensures justice and equality to every individual and institutions, therefore, the
makers of the constitution upheld the sanctity and prestige of the revered institution by
placing provisions under articles 129 and 215 of the constitution, which enables the courts to
hold individuals in contempt if they attempt to demean or belittle their authority. There have
been several legislations passed since as early as 1926 to govern the law of contempt in the
country, the current one being The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which stood amended last
in 2006.

The law pertaining to contempt in India, like all other laws in the country, traces its history to
English laws and statutes. It is interesting to note in this context that there were no statutory
laws to this effect until the year 1926 and the law relating to contempt was governed by the
corresponding British legal principles and laws governing their superior courts of record. The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was the first statutory legislation that granted powers to High
Courts of Judicature established by Letters Patent to punish contempts of subordinates courts.
The Act, however, failed to provide for contempt of courts subordinate to Chief Courts and
Judicial Commissioner’s Court, as also for an extra-territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and
was therefore repealed by The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, with the institution of which
all the respective Indian states Acts also stood rescinded.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 did not confer any new powers on the courts. It, however,
made two significant digressions from the prior Act of 1926 in that, one, it redefined ‘High
Court’ to include the Courts of Judicial Commissioner and two, provided for the aforesaid to
try for contempts subordinate to them as well. Surprisingly though, the term ‘contempt’ had
not been defined in any of the Acts yet and there was a still lot of ambiguity present around
the law of contempt. Also, it was realised that the said law needed to be dealt with in light of
two fundamental rights granted in the constitution, namely, freedom of speech and
expression and right to personal liberty. Thus, there was set up a committee in 1961 under the
chairmanship of late H.N. Sanyal, the recommendations of which took the form of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and overhauled the entire law relating to contempt in the
country.
 CONCLUSION
While studying the history of the Contempt f courts in India, one has to remember that this law
originated in pre-independence India, where the British looked to stifle the criticism of the
judicial system by the public. Though the Contempt of Court Act, 1952 and 1971 have since
repealed many of the stifling provisions of the pre-independence act, some lacunae remain in the
law.

The Law of Contempt of Court has to balance the Freedom of right to speech and expression
granted to the citizens of India as well as the provisions made to enable the judicial system to
function without obstruction of any kind.

Looking at it from this angle one can immediately realize that in a democracy the purpose of the
Contempt of Court power can only be to enable the Court to function. The power is not to
prevent the people from criticizing the Judges if the latter do not function properly or commit
misconduct. The power given is to prevent obstruction of justice.