contempt of court not only useful for advocates but also for witnesses and parties to the suit

1. Contempt Of Court
Introduction
Contempt of court refers to actions which either defy a court's authority, cast disrespect on a
court, or impede the ability of the court to perform its function.
Contempt takes two forms: criminal contempt and civil contempt. Actions that one might
normally associate with the phrase "contempt of court," such as a party causing a serious
disruption in the courtroom, yelling at the judge, or refusing to testify before a grand jury, would
often constitute criminal contempt of court.
Civil contempt of court most often happens when someone fails to adhere to an order from the
court, with resulting injury to a private party's rights. For example, failure to pay court ordered
child support can lead to punishment for civil contempt. Typically, the aggrieved party, such as a
parent who has not received court ordered child support payments, may file an action for civil
contempt.
Direct and Indirect Contempt
Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect." Direct contempt occurs in the presence of the
court - during a court proceeding, for example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of
the court.
Civil contempt often occurs indirectly - for example, when a party is ordered to turn over
financial records within thirty days but refuses to do so. Indirect contempt is sometimes called
constructive or consequential contempt.
Types of Civil Contempt:
1. Civil Contempt is defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. “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, are regarded as civil contempt’s.
3. Willfully disobeying the Court orders or willfully breaching his own undertaking are the civil
contempt.
4. It contains less seriousness
5. Generally, the party aggrieved by the acts of the contemner brings to the notice of the Court
about such contempt, by an application.
5. Generally the majority of the civil contempts are done by the judgment debtor or any other
person whom the Court had already directed or ordered to do a certain civil work.
6. The degree of standard of proof is required lesser to that of criminal contempt proceedings.

2. 7. Apology: Apology is a good defence. Majority cases, the Courts satisfy if the contemnor gives
an unconditional apology, and also an undertaking to fulfil the obligation.
8. A Civil Contempt may be considered as criminal contempt, if the contemner neglects to obey
the Court’s orders already given in the previous instance.
9. A civil contempt is generally limited to the parties to a suit, viz. Judgment debtors, Governmnt
officers, authorities. A civil contempt arises when the Court issues certain directions of them,
and if they fail to comply such orders.
10. Mens rea is an essential ingredient to be proved in civil contempts.
11. In majority of the Civil contempts, the Court gives the contemner to correct and rectify his
conduct, before punishing
Punishment for Civil Contempt of Court vs. Criminal Contempt of Court
Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt
sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to
satisfy the court's order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt
sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the
underlying case is resolved.
Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in
civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil
contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal
contempt defendants.
Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an
opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not
need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or
fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying
case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.

3. Meaning of Willful Disobedience u/Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors.[1] – In this case, the
Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that
defines the term civil contempt and held that the term ‘Willful’ under Section 2(b) means an act
or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do
something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to
be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.
It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore,
in order to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable
of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra
ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a
third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances
of each case.
Willful Breach of Undertaking is a Civil Contempt
Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju & Anr.[2]– In this case, the High Court of Karnataka
observed that the orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in
appeal/revision.
While elucidating on the principles relating to contempt law the Court remarked that the
definition of Civil Contempt includes willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. Public
interest requires that solemn undertakings given to a Court with the intention of obtaining any
benefit should not be breached willfully. No litigant can be allowed to wriggle away from a
solemn undertaking given to the Court, as it will open dangerous trends and defeat the very
purpose of giving undertakings to Court.
It was further observed that once litigants give an undertaking to a Court, they should comply
with it in all circumstances, the only exceptions being fraud or statutory bar. They cannot break
an undertaking with impunity and then attempt to justify it. The breach of solemn undertaking
given to a Court is a serious matter and will have to be dealt with seriously.
1. AIR 2004 SC 105
2. 2004 (5) Kar. LJ 338

4. Court’s Constitutional Right to Punish for Contempt
Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr.[3]– In this case, the Supreme Court dwelled into
the constitutional powers vested in it under Article 129 read with Article 142(2) of the
Constitution of India and the power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution to
punish for contempt and held as follows:-
The Apex Court while examining this power remarked that no act of parliament can take away
the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Record to punish for contempt and the Parliament’s
power of legislation on the subject cannot, therefore, be so exercised as to stultify the status and
dignity of the Supreme Court and/or the High Courts, though such a legislation may serve as a
guide for the determination of the nature of punishment which this court may impose in the case
of established contempt.
Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.[4] – In this case also the Supreme Court once
again declared that the powers of contempt are inherent in nature and the provisions of the
Constitution only recognize the said pre-existing situation.
That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation
of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the
said two Articles.
Here it was additionally held by the Apex Court that the High Court cannot create or assume
power to inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Violation of Undertaking/Consent Terms is Contempt
Rama Narang vs. Ramesh Narang and Anr.[5]– In this case, the respondent argued relating to
the maintainability of the contempt petition filed by the petitioner before Supreme Court by
taking a plea that the consent order recorded before the court did not contain an undertaking or
an injunction of the court and hence could not form the basis of any proceedings for contempt.
3. (1998) 4 SCC 409
4. (2001) 1 SCC 516
5. [5] 2006(11) SCC 114

5. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that the consent terms arrived at between the
parties before it, having been incorporated in the order passed by the court, any violation of the
said terms of the consent order and connected matters would tantamount to violation of the
Court’s order and therefore, be punishable under the first limb of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt Jurisdiction cannot be used to enforce a Decree Passed in a Civil Suit
Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi[6] – In the case the Supreme Court held that once
the suit stood decreed, if there is a grievance of non-compliance with the terms of the decree
passed in the suit, a remedy is available to the aggrieved person to approach the Execution Court
but resort cannot had to contempt proceedings, by invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC,
as such a provision is available only during the pendency of the suit and not after the conclusion
of the trial. Thus, it was held by the Apex Court that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to
enforce a decree passed in a civil suit.
D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal[7] – In this case the Supreme Court stated that any person, who
moves the court for contempt, only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting
contempt of court. After furnishing the said information, he may assist the court but at the end of
the day, there are only two parties in such proceedings, the court and the contemnor.
6. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1798 of 2009
7. (1988) 3 SCC 26

6. Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19718
 The Law Commission of India (Chair: Justice B.S. Chauhan) submitted its report on the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt refers to the offence of showing disrespect to
the dignity or authority of a court. The Act divides contempt into civil and criminal
contempt. Civil contempt refers to the wilful disobedience of an order of any court.
Criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: (i) ‘scandalises’ the court, or
(ii) prejudices any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes with the administration of justice
in any other manner. ‘Scandalising the Court’ broadly refers to statements or
publications which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
 The report examined whether the definition of contempt in the Act should be restricted to
civil contempt, i.e., wilful disobedience of judgments of court. The Commission
concluded that there was no requirement to amend the Act, for the reasons stated below:
 High number of contempt cases: The Commission observed that there were a high
number of civil (96,993) and criminal (583) contempt cases pending in various High
Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission observed that the high number of cases
justify the continuing relevance of the Act. It stated that amending the definition of
contempt may reduce the overall impact of the law and lessen the respect that people
have for courts and their authority and functioning.
 International comparison: In relation to the offence of ‘scandalising the Court’, the
Commission noted that the United Kingdom had abolished the offence in its contempt
laws. However, it noted that there were two differences in circumstances in India and the
United Kingdom, which warranted a continuation of the offence in India. First, India
continues to have a high number of criminal contempt cases, while the last offence of
Scandalising the Court in the UK was in 1931. Second, the offence of Scandalising the
Court continues to be punishable in UK under other laws. The Commission observed
that abolishing the offence in India would leave a legislative gap.
 Source of contempt power: The Commission observed that the superior courts
(Supreme Court and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the Constitution.
The Act only outlines the procedure in relation to investigation and punishment for
contempt. Therefore, deletion of the offence from the Act will not impact the inherent
constitutional powers of the superior courts to punish anyone for its contempt. These
powers will continue to remain, independent of the 1971 Act.
8. Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, “https://www.prsindia.org/report-
summaries/review-contempt-courts-act-1971”

7.  Impact on subordinate courts: The Constitution allows superior courts to punish for
their contempt. The Act additionally allows the High Court to punish for contempt of
subordinate courts. The Commission argued that if the definition of contempt is
narrowed, subordinate courts will suffer as there will be no remedy to address cases of
their contempt.
 Ambiguity: The Commission observed that amending the definition of contempt will
lead to ambiguity. This is because the superior courts will continue to exercise contempt
powers under the Constitution. If there is no definition for criminal contempt in the Act,
superior courts may give multiple definitions and interpretations to what constitutes
contempt. The Commission suggested retaining the definition for the purpose of
ensuring clarity.
 Adequate safeguards: The Commission noted that there are several safeguards built into
the Act to protect against its misuse. For instance, the Act contains provisions which lays
down cases that do not amount to contempt and cases where contempt is not punishable.
These provisions suggest that the courts will not prosecute all cases of contempt. The
Commission further noted that the Act had withstood judicial scrutiny, and therefore,
there was no reason to amend it.
Conclusion
Civil contempt of court refers to behavior which disobeys the authority of a court in a
civil proceeding. Civil contempt is distinct from criminal contempt of court. Most often,
civil contempt of court involves failure to satisfy a court order. Generally, sanction for
civil contempt end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or the
underlying case resolves. Civil contempt can result in punishment including jail time
and/or a fine.