top of page
Search

Understanding Criminal Contempt of Court

Abstract: 


The following article deals with criminal contempt of court in depth, offering light on its intricate definition and the ensuing consequences linked with this legal violation. The essay delves into the main notion, elucidating the numerous types of contempt, separating criminal contempt from civil contempt. The discussion covers the components of criminal contempt, stressing purposeful noncompliance or overlooking of court orders, interruption of legal proceedings, or any conduct that interferes with the carrying out of justice.  


Furthermore, the article meticulously outlines the penalties and consequences individuals may face upon conviction for criminal contempt. it scrutinizes the varying degrees of sanctions , including fines, imprisonment , or a combinations of both, depending on the jurisdiction and the severity of the contemptuous behavior . Additionally, the article delves into case precedents that have shaped the jurisprudence surrounding criminal contempt, providing a contextual understanding of how courts have approached and adjudicate such cases. 


By offering a nuanced analysis of the legal framework surrounding criminal contempt of court. The article explores the concept of criminal contempt, focusing on its legal framework, the distinction from civil contempt, and the consequences under different jurisdictions 



Introduction:


In essence, contempt of court refers to action that shows disregard for the authority and prestige of the court or openly rejects a legally mandated order made by the court. The basic principle that drives contempt of court, as well as the means for enforcing it, recognize the critical role of sustaining the court's authority and guaranteeing compliance with its authorized commands.  "contemnor" is someone who has been found in disobedience of court. Judges examine a variety of variables, including the type of the underlying court process, whether criminal or civil, as well as the seriousness of the defendant's behavior. Normally, the mere threat of contempt fines suffices to deter disruptive and disrespectful behavior. If the deterrent effect fails, a show cause hearing is undertaken to determine if the accused may be put in contempt of court. This procedure guarantees that claims of contempt against any party are handled with the highest respect for the individual's due process rights. Criminal contempt of court refers to activities that defy or hinder a court's power and honor. Disruptions, disobedience of court orders, or any other action that jeopardizes the court's capacity to function are all examples. Penalties for contempt depend on the severity of the misconduct and may include fines, imprisonment, or both, as determined by the court.


Section 2[c] of contempt of court act 1971 defines criminal contempt as follows: “Criminal contempt” is defined as the act of publishing any content or acting in any conduct that fits into one or more of the following categories, whether by words or gestures, written or spoken, visible representations, or any other means :-


1] It infuriates or has the potential to scandalize, or it undermines or has the potential to weaken the authority of any court. 

2] It adversely affects, disrupts, or has a tendency to disrupt the proper conduct of any judicial procedure. 

3] It impedes the execution of justice in any other way, has a tendency to impede it, or causes it to be impeded. 


Background: 


Indian court rulings and statutes are the source of the idea of criminal disobedience. The disdain of courts act 1971 governs judicial disobedience in India. This law establishes and governs civil and criminal courts. The concept stems from the requirement to protect the worth and legitimacy of the judicial system. The Contempt of Courts Act gives the courts the authority to take action against people or organizations who willfully disregard court orders or behave disrespectfully toward the court. The statute strives to uphold the integrity of the legal system and guarantee that court rulings are respected. 


Through legislative changes and judicial interpretations, India's legal system has changed over time regarding contempt of court. Criminal contempt of court has its roots in the need to maintain the authority and effectiveness of the judicial system. The concept is designed to protect the administration of justice by addressing actions that obstruct or undermine court proceedings. Here's a brief background: 


1. Preservation of Judicial Authority: The notion of contempt of court emerged from the recognition that the authority of the judiciary must be preserved for the legal system to function effectively. Actions that challenge the dignity, authority, or functioning of the court can hinder the administration of justice. 


2. Common Law Tradition: The concept has its origins in the common law tradition, where courts historically possessed inherent powers to punish contempt’s. Over time, statutes and legal frameworks, such as the Contempt of Court Act in various jurisdictions, have been enacted to codify and define the scope of contemptuous behaviour. 


3. Protecting Fair Trial: Criminal contempt of court helps in safeguarding the fair trial process. Disruptive behaviour within the courtroom, disobedience of court orders, or attempts to influence the judicial process outside the courtroom can all be considered contemptuous. 


Ensuring respect for the judiciary: contempt laws are aimed at ensuring that the public and parties involved in legal proceedings respect and comply with court decisions. This contributes to the overall stability and trust in the legal system. 


Case Laws:


  1. In June 2020, Prashant Bhushan, a prominent lawyer, faced a contempt of court case for posting critical tweets about the Supreme Court and its judges. The tweets accused past chief justices of India of contributing to the decline of democracy and featured a photo of the current chief justice riding a motorcycle without protective gear during a lockdown. The contempt petition was filed by Adv. Mahek Maheshwari, alleging that Bhushan's tweets aimed to spread hatred and conduct an anti-India campaign. The supreme court ,noting the lack of prior sanction from the attorney  general ,took suo moto cognizance of the tweets , leading to the initiation of the case .During the proceedings, the Attorney argued that Bhushan's statements concerning judges should be cautioned rather than punished, emphasizing the need for judges to be heard before any decision is made. On the other hand, Bhushan's counsel highlighted his past cases and public interest petitions, claiming that the contempt jurisdiction is vague and that Bhushan's tweets were expressions of concern during the pandemic. The judgment, delivered on August 31st, imposed a fine of INR 1 on Bhushan, with a deadline to pay by September 15th, 2020. Failure to comply would result in a 3-month imprisonment and a 3-year prohibition from practicing law. Bhushan paid the fine on time and subsequently filed a review of the judgment. 


  2. In the case of C.K Daphtary and Ors v/s OP Gupta and Ors, the respondent OP Gupta published a booklet that purportedly ascribed bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah, scandalizing judges and bringing contempt to the authority of the Supreme Court. The petitioners, led by C.K Daphtary, argued that the publication weakened public confidence in the highest court. The key issues included determining whether the act amounted to contempt of court and whether the wrong was done to the judge personally or to the public.


    During the arguments, OP Gupta contended that existing contempt of court laws in India were repugnant to the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and urged the court to adopt laws similar to those in the USA. In response, Mr. C.K Daphtary asserted that Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) did not apply to contempt laws concerning the Supreme Court due to Article 129 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt. The judgment held OP Gupta guilty of contempt of court, sentencing him to two months of simple imprisonment. The second respondent, Melaram (press partner), apologized, and no further action was taken against him, while the third respondent remained unserved or untraced.   


Legal Implications of Criminal Contempt:-


Criminal breach of court is defined as intentional disdain for the legitimacy of the court, intervention in its business, or disdain for the legal system as a whole. It can encompass acts that disobey instructions, are disrespectful, or hamper the execution of justice. Legal ramifications could include everything between fines to prison time. Its importance lies in upholding the judiciary's legitimacy and power. Contempt laws uphold judicial authority and maintain order in the courtroom, ensuring fair and impartial proceedings. This authority is essential for the judiciary to work efficiently and for the general public to trust the legal system. Criminal contempt can manifest as direct disruptions during court proceedings, indirect actions that undermine judicial authority, or publications that prejudice legal outcomes, While civil contempt involves non-compliance with court orders to benefit the opposing party or compel compliance, criminal contempt is punitive, aimed at punishing behaviour that disrespects or obstructs the court. 


In criminal contempt: 


  • Direct Contempt: Involves misbehavior that occurs in the court's presence, such as disrespectful language or disruptive conduct during proceedings.

  • Indirect (or Constructive) Contempt: Occurs outside the court's immediate presence and includes actions that undermine the court's authority, like willful disobedience of a court order. 

  • Criminal Contempt by Publication: Involves publishing materials that scandalize or prejudice a court, potentially obstructing justice. 

  • Criminal Contempt in Facie Curiae: Refers to actions that are inherently disrespectful or disruptive, irrespective of the court's perception. This can include perjury or making false statements. 

  • Criminal contempt differs from civil contempt primarily in its punitive nature. Civil contempt sanctions aim to compel compliance or secure compensation for the opposing party, while criminal contempt penalties are punitive, intending to punish the contemnor for their disrespectful or obstructive behaviour. 

  • Penalties for criminal contempt may include fines or imprisonment, and the severity depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the contemptuous conduct. The purpose is to maintain the authority of the court, ensure the fair administration of justice, and deter future contemptuous behaviour. 

  • Contempt of court can take various forms, broadly categorized into civil contempt and criminal contempt. While civil contempt involves non-compliance with court orders to benefit the opposing party or compel compliance, criminal contempt is punitive, aimed at punishing behaviour that disrespects or obstructs the court. 


Conclusions: 


In conclusion, criminal contempt of court refers to disruptive or disrespectful behavior that obstructs the administration of justice. Penalties for such contempt vary by jurisdiction but commonly include fines, imprisonment, or a combination of both. These measures are implemented to maintain order, uphold the integrity of court proceedings, and ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.  


 Criminal contempt of court represents a serious breach of judicial authority, warranting penalties to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings. The enforcement of penalties for criminal contempt ensures respect for court authority and the proper administration of justice. These measures are implemented to maintain order, uphold the integrity of court proceedings, and ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.  


Criminal contempt cases have triggered complex ethical and legal debates, exemplified by instances like Chelsea Manning's refusal to testify and lawyers facing charges for criticizing judges. These controversies illuminate the delicate balance between upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and safeguarding individual rights, particularly the principles of free speech and transparency. As the legal landscape evolves, finding the appropriate equilibrium between courtroom decorum and the preservation of civil liberties remains a nuanced challenge within the judicial system. In conclusion, these laws reinforce public confidence in the judicial system by deterring disruptive or disrespectful behavior.


The integrity of court proceedings, and ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system, criminal contempt laws are a crucial component of a legal framework designed to uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. By discouraging behaviour that threatens the court's authority and by penalizing contemptuous actions, these laws contribute to a justice system that is central to the functioning of a democratic society. 


Criminal contempt cases have triggered complex ethical and legal debates, exemplified by instances like Chelsea Manning's refusal to testify and lawyers facing charges for criticizing judges. These controversies illuminate the delicate balance between upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and safeguarding individual rights, particularly the principles of free speech and transparency. While contempt laws are essential for protecting judicial authority, courts must balance these with constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and public accountability. The challenge lies in crafting and applying these laws judiciously to uphold both the principles of free expression and the integrity of the judiciary. 


References-


 

This article is authored by Bushra Kazi. She was among the Top 40 performers in the Legal Drafting Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page