INTRODUCTION

Contempt of court is a charge which can be laid against someone for interrupting
the process of justice in a court of law. Contempt of Courts Act gives power to
Court to punish anyone who does its contempt. Our constitution makers provided
contempt power to our higher judiciary to protect the authority and legitimacy of
Court.

Under Indian law, “contempt of court” has been divided into two categories: civil
contempt and criminal contempt.

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” (section 2.b).

Section 2.c says that “Criminal Contempt” means 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

1. Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower or tends to

lower the authority of, any court, or
2. Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding: or
3. Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.”1

1
Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act of 1971

1
HISTORY

Contempt of Courts Act gives power to Court to punish anyone who does its
contempt. This concept/law developed in Britain, spread through colonialism to
protect the authority and legitimacy of Court power to punish for contempt
provided to Judiciary. Our constitution makers also for the same reasons provided
contempt power to our higher judiciary. There was no statutory law of contempt
till 1926. Indian courts followed the English Common Law. In 1926, the
government enacted the Contempt of Courts Act XII of 1926, whereby the High
Courts were given power to punish for contempt of courts “subordinate” to them.
This was repealed and substituted by the Contempt of Courts Act XXXII of 1952,
which has been replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, No. 20 of 19712

RESTRAINTS

Law of Contempt imposes three types of restraints:

1. Restrictions on writings or speeches affecting matters pending in the court

(subjudice)
2. Punishment for defiance of Court Orders
3. Punishment for Scandalous attacks on judges or the Court.

Subjudice Matter:

The Supreme courts ask the parties of litigations to refrain from speaking to the
media or publishing articles on pending matters. In issues involving different

2
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l430-Contempt-Power-of-Court.html

2
aspects of people’s life, judicial process is used as one of the tools for protecting
the people’s right. Public advocacy and political mobilization cannot be excluded
just because recourse to judicial process has been taken. To expect that a person
who chooses to invoke the judicial process must eschew public advocacy is to
make the judicial process rather too socially expensive remedy. Whether a
common citizen or Press untrained in law has a right to speak anything against or
comment upon the Judgment or courts or attitude of court or of Judges.

Defiance of Court Order:

When an order of court is disobeyed, the power to punish for contempt is

necessary to maintain the dignity of the court If people can get away with
defiance of the orders of the court, the court will lose respect and will be further
disobeyed. Any disobedience that goes unpunished can waken the authority of
the court and affects its legitimacy. Courts only source of power is the feeling
among the people that they are bound by it. Power of court does not lie in the
actual punishment that it imposes. But, in the feeling among people that they
have an obligation to obey the court.

Attacks on Judges/ court:

It is one thing to criticize the decisions of the court and quite another to criticize
the Judges. It seems the court is now rather too sensitive to criticism of the
Judges. There are no of contradictions in the law of contempt

1. There is no defence of the truth in a contempt case as is available in

defamation case.

3
 2. Law of contempt holds even the media liable for reporting the contempt
committed by another person3

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent (O. P. Gupta) published and circulated a booklet in public

purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah while acting in his
judicial capacity. Mr C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed a petition alleging that
the booklet has scandalised the judges who participated in the decision and
brought into contempt the authority of the highest court of the land and thus
weakened the confidence of the people in it.

ISSUES

Whether the act done amounts to contempt of court?

Whether the wrong is done to judge personally or it is done to the public?

ARGUMENTS

The first respondent has urged that the existing law relating to contempt of court
by writings in respect of proceedings which have finished is repugnant to Article
19(1)(a), read with Article 19(2). He contends that the existing law imposes
unreasonable restrictions on a citizen’s right to freedom of speech guaranteed

3
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l430-Contempt-Power-of-Court.html

4
under Article 19(1)(a). He urges that we should follow the law existing in the
United States of America. Mr. C.K. Daphtary, on the other hand, contends, first,
that Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) do not apply to the law relating to contempt
of this Court because of Article 129 of the Constitution, which reads:

“The Supreme Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of
such a court including the powers to punish for contempt of itself.”

Secondly, Mr. Daphtary urges that the existing law relating to contempt of court is
not a ‘law” covered by the definition of the word “law” in Article 13(3)(a).

Thirdly, Mr. Daphtary contends that the existing law only imposes reasonable
restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.4

JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY COURT

The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down
that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere
defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of
justice or the proper administration of law by the court.

In the result it is held that O.P. Gupta, respondent No. 1, is guilty of contempt of
this Court and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months.

Responded no.2 Melaram partner of press stated that he did not look into the
material which the 1st responded brought for printing and expressed his

4
Para 48 of C. K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta AIR1971SC1132

5
unconditional and unqualified apology to this court. No further action was taken
against him.

3rd respondent has not been served or traced.

CONCLUSION

The law of Contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in
the Judicial process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the
common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set up is likely to be
eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself”.