Contempt of court Act 1971

1.INTRODUCTION

Let us imagine a field where players are playing a game. If the players while playing a game do not follow the rules and show disrespect to the referee they are punished similarly in a courtroom where justice is performed, when people disrespect the court or judge or disrupt the functioning of the court and are defiant to its orders, they are faced with contempt of court charges. This act is like a referee making sure the game (or in this case legal proceedings) goes on without any unfair moves. This act serves as a crucial instrument to strike a delicate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the imperative to protect the dignity of the courts.

It was enacted on December 24 1971[1] and in simple words contempt of court is the act of being disrespectful or defiant to the court of law. It is a under the C.R.P.C neither a cognizable nor an non cognizable offence however under section 17 in the contempt of courts acts it is written that is compulsory to serve notice before any proceedings are taken unless stated otherwise by a judge and thus the procedure followed is more similar to that of a non-cognizable offence. This act is instrumental in ensuring that the courts can function properly with respect which is vital in their proper functioning[2].

2.Types of Contempt of Court

There are broadly two categories of contempt.

1. Being disrespectful to legal authorities in a courtroom

2. Wilfully failing to obey a court order.

When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court then it then declares that a person or the organization has been found or held in the contempt of court. These proceedings are especially used so that there can be equitable remedies enforced such as injunctions.

There are mainly two types of contempt of court

1. Civil contempt of court: It is committed when there is a wilful disobedience of a order ,decree, judgement passed by a competent jurisdiction

2. Criminal contempt of court : According to section 2(c) of The contempt of court Act, 1971 states that, criminal contempt it is defined as

(i) the publication of any matter by words ,spoken or written, any gesture sign or (ii)

(ii) doing of any act which includes,

1.Scandalize or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court.
2. Biasness, interferes Or tends to interfere with the due course of any type of judicial proceedings or

3.Obstructs or tends to obstructs interfere or tends to interfere with the administration of justice in any manner.[3]

3.PUNISHMENT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT

A finding of being in contempt of court might result from an inability to submit to a legal request of a court, showing disregard for the appointed authority, disturbance of the procedures through poor way of behaving, or publication of material or non-exposure of publication, which in doing so is could likely endanger a fair trail. A judge may impose fine or jail if someone is found guilty under contempt of court[4].

4. CRITISISM TO THE ACT

Only the supreme court or high court are given the power to punish for the contempt of court. According to the Indian Penal Code, Section 12 of contempt of CourtAct, 1971, contempt of courtcan 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[5].

This act has been widely criticized by by many judges and lawyers due to its negative effect on the freedom of speech and the vagueness in its definition. It can be said that criticism is the basis for improvement and the criticism of the , legislature or judiciary or the executive is one of the basic tenets of a democracy. Its broad scope has lead to the misuse of this act because of which it has become a shield to criticism aimed at the judiciary. In 2011 the former supreme court judge Markandeya Katju has requested for amendments in the contempt of court act 1971 so that in order to allow for better reporting of the media in law and judiciary-related matters[6]. In March 2018 the law commission of India was tasked with the re-examining section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 which defines the term offence. It was also proposed that it should be limited to cases of civil contempt. The argument for the same is that civil condemt of court deals with the wrong of wilful disobediance of court orders thus ensuring the smooth functionig of legal proceedings. By eliminating criminal contempt, which involves actions like scandalizing the court or obstructing the administration of justice, proponents believe that a more nuanced and balanced legal framework can be established.

4.Conclusion

This act plays a very pivotal role in maintaining the sanctity of the judiciary and the courts. Just like a referee, this act aim to strike a balance between the right to the freedom of expression and the imperative to protect the proper and respectable functioning of the courts. Nevertheless, this act though necessary due to its vague and broad interpretation has been widely misused and used as a shield to criticism which is one of the foundations to a democracy. Former supreme court judge Markhandeya Katju and the law commission of india have advocated for better reforms in the contempt of court act 1971. As the fight for amendments on the act are ongoing, it is imperative for there to be a balance between protecting the respect of the court and the right of the people to critique the judiciary as it is the foundation for any change or development. One of the most notable and resonable method to achieve such a balance would be to keep it so that there is only civil contempt of court and not criminal contempt of court . Many advocates have also stated that due to there being criminal contempt of court, it leads to a chilling effect on free speech thus impeding the democratic principle of open criticism and scrutiny of the judicial system.