CONTEMPT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1. CONTEMPT
JURISDICTION OF
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
PARTH SAGDEO
Roll No.:32

2. Introduction
The Supreme Court has been established under Article 124 of the
Constitution of India wherein it is provided with extraordinary powers.
There are various inherited powers are vested in the Supreme Court under
different provisions provided under the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court exercises its original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction by way of
five (5) different Articles contained in the Constitution which are; Article
32, 129, 131, 139A and 142. Article 32[1] of the Constitution provides power
to the Supreme Court with regard to the issuing of writs like mandamus,
prohibition, habeas corpus, quo warranto, and certiorari. The writs can be
enforced against the infringement of fundamental rights provided under
Part III of the Constitution of India. Any legislation made by the parliament
which is in violation with the Part III of the Constitution, can be challenged
before the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

3. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India:
Contempt jurisdiction is a special type of jurisdiction bestowed upon by
the constitution. This power of contempt must be used with utmost care
and with absolute fairness to uphold and maintain the integrity of the
court and to have the faith of the citizens in law strengthened in a better
manner. Power of contempt brings along an assurance of dignity in tact
of judicial institution in order to protect it from degrading and to have
non- interference in the functioning system of administration of justice.
Article 129 of Indian Constitution play a crucial role towards
contempt. Supreme Court has the power for punishing a person who is
liable for contempt under Article 129. Article 129 was inserted so that
the power given to the Supreme Court shall be used wisely when the
need arises, so that any one questioning or trying to lower the
value judicial system, will be put behind bars or such other actions
taken which deem to be appropriate.

4. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India
Article 131 deals with the exercising the powers conferred upon the Supreme Court
to resolve the issues arising in between two or more states or state(s) government.
The suo-moto cognizance can be taken by the Supreme Court. In view of patent
ambiguities regarding the State and State Government, as the State is a different
entity and the State Government is a different entity.
The question first arose in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, where the
state government was denied to be identified as the ‘State’. However, the position
was clear in case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India, in which it was observed
that the State Government is an inseparable part of the State and it should be
considered as State. As per Article 131, the Supreme Court cannot exercise its
jurisdiction regarding the water disputes and can only give advisory opinion
regarding it through Article 147 of the Constitution.
Article 139A of the Constitution of the Supreme Court enables it to transfer certain
cases or club case from different High Courts to a single High Court. The Supreme
Court has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters.

5. Definition of Contempt of Courts
According to the Encyclopedia, the term contempt in law refers to inference with
the functioning of a legislature or court. In the popular sense, it refers to despising
of the authority of justice or dignity of a Court.
Contempt of Court in a layman’s term can be explained as an offence which tries to
impair and degrade the judicial authority of the Courts and interferes with the
smooth functioning of the judicial system. Black Odgers proclaims that any
published words and/or any act which causes or intends the judicial administration
of justice is to be seen as a disdain which results in the Contempt of Court, to
detriment any justified trial relating to any matter or cause, being the substantial
subject matter of the proceeding, whether Civil or Criminal or to hinder the
administration of justice.

6. Contempt defined by the Supreme Court
In the case of E.M. Sankaran
Mamboodripad v. T.N. Nambiar AIR 1970
SC 2015, the Apex court had identified different
kinds of contempt such as: Insult to judges,
attacks upon them, contempt on pending
proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair
trial, obstruction to officers of courts,witnesses
or the parties, abusing process of the court,
breach of duty by officers connected and
scandalizing the judges of the courts.

8. Civil Contempt
As per Section 2(b) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971,
defines “Civil contempt”, which means willful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order,
writ or other process of a court or willful breach of
undertaking an given to a court.
Civil contempt is committed when a person is acting in a
manner which results in an obstacle leading to
hindrance in attaining the ends of justice. This type of
contempt is committed when a person is not following
the order passed by the Court. Ergo, non-compliance
with the order of the Court would result in contempt of
Court under Article 129 of the Constitution.

9. Criminal Contempt
Criminal Contempt is defined under Section 2(c)
of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
According to which criminal contempt is any
publication which may result in-
1. Scandalizing the Court by lowering its authority.
2. Interference in the due course of judicial
proceeding.
3. Creates an obstruction in administration of
justice.

10. Difference between Civil and Criminal Contempt
● Criminal contempt takes place if the authority or the dignity of
the Judiciary is lowered or questioned. Civil contempt on the
other hand is brought into force when the rights and remedies
of a party recognized by the court through an order or decision
is willfully disobeyed or breached.
● The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not
determined on the basis of the penalty imposed, but is
determined on the basis of the cause or the reason for which the
penalty was imposed. In case of contempt civil the primary
objective is to provide the injured party with an enforceable
remedy, whereas in the case of criminal contempt the primary
goal is to preserve the judiciary's authority and dignity.

11. Recent Amendment
The recent amendment in the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 has inserted Section 13(b). The provision has added
to give rise to an exception of truth, as a defense for
Contempt of Court. Furthermore, the contempt
proceeding can be initiated till 1 year from the
commission of an offence. Apology also forms a defense
under the contempt of Court act, however, it should be
unconditional and should be in good faith with the
promise to abide by the order of the Court. Any person
can file a suit for contempt under Article 129 of the
constitution or through the Rules to Regulate Proceeding
for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

12. Contempt of Courts:
Article 129 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court to punish for its contempt. As the
dignity of the Judiciary is of the utmost importance, the Supreme Court has the power to
punish any person for Contempt of the Court. Article 215 empower to High Court for the
contempt as well, although, it is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the High
Court does not have the power to initiate the contempt proceedings of the Supreme Court i.e.,
if there is contempt of Supreme Court then, only Supreme Court can initiate the contempt
proceeding. In case of Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 129 of
Constitution can decide its own jurisdiction.
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with
power to punish for contempt of Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. In
case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, Part-I of the Rules to Regulate
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, the Court may take action (a) Suo
motu, or (b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or (c) on a petition
made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the
Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

13. Important Proposition
In case of Hira Lal Dixit v. State of U.P, the Court observed that actual hindrance or
obstruction in the administration of justice is an essential part to establish Contempt. Further
the acts which may be derogatory and resulting in the lowering of the authority of the Court in
the eyes of the general public may also result in contempt of Court. Thus, Contempt of Court is
vast and the Court has the power to decide the punishment for it as well. The general exceptions
like truth, fair and bonafide comment, and fair and reasonable criticism are permissible. As the
Apex Court of the nation, the Court is the authority which is followed by people and is relied on a
complete basis which forms a duty on the part of the Judiciary to accept the mistakes committed
by it and should be open to criticism, protecting the right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a)[8] of the Constitution of India. In case of Markandey Katju, the fair
and reasonable criticism was exceeded thereby, scandalizing the Court and was considered as
lowering the authority of the Court.

14. In the case of C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, it was
held that any act which brings down the confidence of
the Judiciary in the mind of the general public or is
hindering the administration of justice or is such that
affecting reputation of the judges of the Supreme Court
or the Supreme Court itself, the Court can take suo-
moto cognizance of the matter and can extend its
jurisdiction depending upon that the powers of the
Supreme Court are not whittled down. In this context,
Article 129 read with Article 142 of the constitution, the
Supreme Court can pass any order which is necessary
to continue the stream of justice.

15. In the case of P. N Duda V/s P. Shanker and Ors, [AIR 1988 SC 1208],
the Apex Court framed the following issues and observed the following:
Issues:
(1) Is the application sustainable with no approval of attorney and solicitor
general?
(2) Whether they can be the parties to the application and was their actions
justified?
(3) Was the speech given by the respondent in the nature of contempt of court?
Judgment:
The court decided to dismiss the petition on the background that the application
cannot be maintained with the approval of the mandate officers; however it is
always open to the petitioner to seek the remedy from the court for suo moto
action. The action of the advocate and solicitor general was justified on the
ground of interest of justice and lastly the court observed that the fair criticism or
opinions should always be entertained by the court, so far as they do not
undermine or hinder the judicial process. The speech of the respondent was not
intended to obstruct the judicial administration and was made with fair view.

16. Conclusion
It can be easily drawn that Contempt of Court forms an integral
part in the original jurisdiction of the Court and is therefore a
necessary part of the Constitution. It empowers the Court to
perform extraordinary jurisdiction to protects its dignity and
integrity so that the confidence of the people remains in the
judiciary. Also, the stream of justice is of utmost importance and
the judiciary should remain free from the executive control when
the matter is with respect to the dignity of the Court. The defences
provides the exception to the contempt of Court and thus saves the
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India.