"The Contempt in ordinary sense means to insult, disgrace or dishonour something, and when the insult is of a Court or Tribunal or any other judicial organ of the nation, that it tantamount to "Contempt of Court". The Contempt of Court is a punishable offence in India under the statutory provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Contempt of Court has it's origin from the traditions and rules of Common Law System of 13th century at England, where the Justices and the Courts were regarded as equivalent to the King and hence the immunity from any unfair or disgraceful statement, or any act which lowers the image of Judiciary in the eyes of common public was provided to the Judges since then, and gradually it's became an inherited and adopted practice in India, as it to follows the Common Law System and the structure of UK till date in India.

That the constitutional makers of India have also laid deep emphasis on the honour and integrity of judiciary of the country, and have provided specific provisions with empowering the High Court and Supreme Court of India to punish the contemnor of court by itself, independently by using constitutionally delegated powers.

The main intention of legislature behind making the Contempt of Court a punishable offence is to maintain the dignity and respect of judiciary in the eyes of nation and also to enable people to follow the Judgements of the Courts, without any unwarranted resistance and reservations thereon.

However it is to be kept in mind that the applicability of the aforesaid provisions have certain exceptions like fair criticism, fair reporting and reasonable arguments on the merits of the case, likewise a Media House, Reporter, Advocate or even a laymen can express his disagreement in a sophisticated manner on the Judgement been pronounced by any Court of India, on fair merits and legal aspects, however speaking in an abusive manner or ill about the Court or any sitting Justice of the any Court which lowers their image in the eyes of society, will definitely enable the Judiciary to book the person and prosecute him for Contempt of Court.

That as the India follows the concept of separation of powers and hence the Judiciary is totally independent organ of the government hence it's honour and prestige must be given paramount consideration above from any other thing in the country, so as to establish the rule of law in the nation and with working on the notions of welfare state at large.

Constitutional Framework In India

That as we have studied in the Kelson's pure law theory that "Every law derives it's power or authority from one supreme source" which is known as "Grundnorm", similarly in our case that grundnorm in our Indian Constitution.

The Constitution of India is suprema-lex i.e. supreme law of the land, and each and every law or legislation passed by any state legislature or Parliament ultimately derives it's utility from constitution only. That even prior to enactment of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, our constitution has provided specific provisions empowering the courts to punish the contemnor for Contempt of Court, and the subsequent legislations can be regarded as the extension to these provisions of the Constitution.

That Article 129[1] of the Constitution specifically empowers Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to punish for contempt of itself, which is self-explanatory for explaining the significance and intention of legislature behind the Contempt of Court and honour of the Apex Court of the country. It is pertinent to mention here that, while hearing the Contempt Petition the matter is being allotted to some other Justice than the one who is hearing the case, if the contempt is committed in front of him, in order to maintain impartiality and pursuance with the principles of natural justice i.e. nemo-judex-causa-sua.

That further Article 215[2] also provides that every High Court of the state shall be a court of record and shall have powers of such court including power to punish for the contempt of itself, which makes it clear that the Judiciary derives it's power from the Constitution and no one has right to insult or commit contempt of it, and hence the dignity and integrity of the Courts must be significantly valued in the country.

Therefore it is aptly clear from the aforesaid perusal that our Constitution has placed the Courts of the country in a supreme position to enforce it's judgements and maintain it's integrity among the public with also enabling them to punish the contemnor of the court with stringent punishments in order to discourage such practice of scandalising or insulting the courts.

Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971

That finally in order to regulate and define the powers of courts and further to punish the contemnors of court in India, the Parliament has enacted the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Act) with also statutorily punishing the offence of contempt of court in the country.

Now, it is pertinent to understand the definition of Contempt of Court act, as Section 2 (a) of the Act, divides the Contempt of Courts under two heads i.e.
Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt, which means as follows:

1. Civil Contempt of Court:
   It is means wilful disobedience to any Judgement, Decree, Order, Writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
    
2. Criminal Contempt of Court:
   It means the publication of any words, spoken or written or by any signs or visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or doing any other act, which either scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court (including Tribunals) or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interfere or tends to interfere or obstructs the administration in any other manner.

That it is clear that on civil contempt the emphasis the restricted till "Wilful Disobedience" only however in the "Criminal Contempt" the purview widely extends to the publication, speaking and visible representations or any other act, which sufficiently extends it's ambit more vast than the civil contempt.

That the Contempt of Court is punishable under Section 12 (1) of the Act, with upto six months of simple imprisonment or with fine upto Rs. 2,000/- or with both and as-per Section 12 (2), no court shall impose a sentence in excess to that specified in Section 12 (1), however under Section 14 (4) of the Act, if the Contempt is done on the face of the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, then subject to the procedural compliance under clause (1), such Court may detain the contemnor for such custody as it may deem fit or may specify.

Case Laws:

1. Vijay Pratap Singh v. Ajit Prasad[3]:
   It was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the instant case, the line of distinction between Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt is very thin, however the objective makes a difference, like in civil contempt the basic legislative intent is to force the contemnor to fulfil his obligations towards the other party in whose favour the judgement is pronounced however in the criminal contempt the objective is punish the contemnor as it is a public wrong to interfere in the process of administration of justice which degrade or lowers the image of the judiciary in the eyes of public at large.
   
2. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. v. Dharam Godha and Ors[4]:
   It was held in the instant case that Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines the term civil contempt and it was interpreted that the term "Wilful" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily, deliberately and intentionally with the element of knowledge imbedded in it. That the court further said that these cases cannot be viewed from one single aspect or angle and hence it must be analysed and decided having due reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.
   
3. Re: Prashant Bhushan and Ors[5]:
   The instant case marked as the landmark case highlighting the legal aspects and rule of law on Contempt of Court in India. The facts were that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, who is an eminent Advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, posted two tweets on Supreme Court of India, in a sarcastic way and said that Supreme Court is "destructing" democracy since last six years and the second tweet contained a photo of Hon'ble CJI, who was sitting on a bike.
   
   The Supreme Court took suo-moto cognisance of the second tweet and have initiated the contempt proceedings against Mr. Bhushan and have said that a publication attacking a sitting judge of the court, purports to attacking the court itself, which dwindles and lowers the image of the judiciary among the public and hampers it's dignity cannot be regarded as fair criticism or innocent publication, hence it imposed a fine of Rs. 1/- on Mr. Bhushan failure to which he will be punished with imprisonment of 3 months and will result into debarring him from practice for three years.

Conclusion
That it is clear, that the image and dignity of court is the pillar for it's existence, and if there will be no dignity of the judiciary, it's judgement will have no value in the eyes of the society.

That as Austin said that for a perfect law, it must be passed by a sovereign, and must have a sanction attached to it on it's non-compliance, otherwise the basic purpose of law will be defeated and it will be an in-effective law.

That it is to be kept in mind that, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is not opposed to the Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution i.e. Freedom of Speech and Expression, however it puts reasonable restrictions on publishing or speaking anything which scandalises or lowers the image of any court in the public or any act which is equivalent to the unwarranted interference in the process of administration of justice, which should be discouraged.

That it is also pertinent to note here that, the Freedom of Press in case of court proceedings is only limited to fair reporting and fair criticism of the matter or judgement as the case may be, as any media house has no authority by any means to pronounce the judgement, until it is pending before the court, however pragmatic analysis is permissible under law.

There are catena of judgements under which the Courts of discouraged and have expressed their dissatisfaction over the media trial and sensational reporting by the Media Houses and News Channels only for achieving their TRP targets and ultimately hampering the process of administration of justice, this is the area were our government needs to focus and enactment of a specific legislation in this matter is the need of the hour.

Lastly, it is the constitutional, moral and ethical duty of each and every citizen of India to respect and obey each and every judgement of the courts in the country, along-with paying due tribute and affirmation to the laws of the land which holds paramount importance for any nation in the world to prosper.

References:References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1396751/
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/10/09/contempt-of-court-2/
• https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/review-contempt-courts-act-1971
• https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/criminal-law/contempt-of-court-in-indiatypes-punishment-639
• https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report274.pdf

End-Notes:

1. Supreme Court to be a Court of Record (PART V- The Union)
2. High Courts to be Courts of Records (PART VI- The States)
3. AIR 1966
4. AIR 2004 SC 105
5. AIR 2020