Throughout history, the term 'contempt' has referred to acts of defiance against the directives of a sovereign ruler or governmental authority. Even in ancient times, any act of disobedience directed at the king or his administration was considered contemptuous and punishable.

A basic understanding of the term 'Contempt of Court'[1]refers to the inherent situation wherein an individual exhibits disrespect or disobedience specifically targeted against the court. This refers to a situation wherein the individual intentionally or deliberately fails to conform to the orders of the court or exhibits a disrespectful attitude and behavior toward the legal authorities. Under such circumstances, the judge has been ensured the right to exercise discretionary powers relating to the issuance of sanctions including fines, or can even direct imprisonment of the contemnor for a specified period, provided he has been found guilty of such contempt.

Talking of Article 129 upholds that the SC, the highest forum, commonly referred to as the 'Court of Record' is vested with a wide variety of discretionary powers that of a court of record. Such a power of the court also includes the authority to penalize individuals for committing the offense of contempt of the said court.

Moreover, Article 142(2) ensures powers to the SC for the purpose of investigating and prescribing punishments in instances involving its contempt.

Third is Article 215 which confers the recognition of being referred to as the 'Court of Record' to the different state High Courts. This article specifically states that courts shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in them, including the inherent authority stance to be able to enact penalizations in the form of punishments for the offense of contempt of itself.

Hence, it becomes clear that both the state's High Court as well as the Supreme Court have been guaranteed the inherent power to penalize individuals engaging in contempt of court. Such powers have been also conferred by the Indian constitution. The Contempt of Courts Act, of 1971 acts being the primary legislation for dealing with such contempt cases.

However, the above statute doesn't explicitly provide a definition of what exactly can be termed as 'contempt'.

Fundamental Importance of Contempt of Court

Having already discussed the term 'contempt of court' or rather 'contempt of law' or simply referred to as 'contempt of its ruling' all mean the same. Essentially speaking, the recognition of such contempt cases is of utmost importance for a nation, like India which follows the due process of law principle. The very concept of 'rule of law' is based on the understanding that the law is supreme and upholds prime importance. This means the judiciary is the highest authority in such a legal setup and the bastion of hope for securing the threads of justice for the citizens. In the landmark case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs UOI, 1995, the court stated that the inherent objective in cases of punishment shall have both aspects of being curative and corrective in nature. This means such coercions are much needed in terms of ensuring assistance to an individual complainant to ensure proper enforcement of his remedy. Furthermore, there should be the element of public policy being followed in instances of punishments for civil contempt. Hence, if the above measures aren't duly complied with, there shall be grave repercussions in terms of undermining the administration of justice.

Understanding Contempt of Court: Key Principles and Categories

Those cases wherein one individual seeks to establish that the other individual has committed an act, otherwise an offense as regarded by the courts. Under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to establish in the court that the offense committed by the person is fulfilling all the essentials required to be made liable for that particular act. If the essentials are fulfilled then the person shall be made liable for the act committed. The offense of contempt of court has four major elements which are as follows:

• There has to be disobedience towards the court or any of its proceedings, the orders pronounced by the court, relevant judgment, decree, etc, done 'wilfully' as in most cases of civil contempt.
• 'Publication' is the most vital factor that is required wherever there is involvement of criminal contempt. Publication can be in the form of verbal utterances, or written, by use of signs, or through visible representation.
• Henceforth, courts shall pronounce a 'valid order', and such an order shall be available to the other person thereby making him aware of the grounds of the same. These safeguards ensure that the order is brought to the best of the 'knowledge' of the other party i.e., the respondent.
• Lastly, it has to be established that the actions put forth by the contemnor should be deliberate and in clear disregard to the orders issued by the court.

Essentially speaking there are majorly two kinds of Contempt of the Court:

• Foremost is the Civil Contempt
• Then we have the Criminal Contempt

Starting with Civil Contempt of Court
Section 2(b) is considered the prime legislation when dealing with contempt cases. The section recognizes an act otherwise falling under the ambit of 'Civil Contempt' as any wilful disobedience to any of the court's issued orders, decree, discretion, judgment, or writ by an individual. The concept of civil contempt encompasses several situations where an individual deliberately fails to adhere to a court order. Such breaches undermine the purpose of the court's order and deprive the affected party of the intended benefit. These infractions are fundamentally private offenses, as they directly harm the individual who was supposed to benefit from the court's decision.

In the case of Utpal Kumar Das vs Court of the Munsif, Kamrup[4], in spite of the court having ordered the defendant to render his due part of assistance, there was resultant non-rendering of such assistance. Hence, owing to certain obstructions, the defendant failed to deliver the immovable property within the stipulated time period. The court held him liable for having constituted disobedience towards the court and it's working.

Criminal Contempt of Court

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides a clear definition of criminal contempt, which encompasses:

• The publication of any material, whether spoken, written, gestured, signed, or visually represented, or
• The performance of an act that otherwise includes:
  • (a) Actions that have the potential to scandalize or tend to scandalize, or have the potential to lower or tend to lower the authority of the court.
  • (b) Actions of bias, interference, or a tendency to cause bias, interference in judicial proceedings.
  • (c) Obstructing or tending to cause such obstruction, interference, or tendency to cause interference, thereby stifling the administration of justice in any manner whatsoever.

In Jaswant Singh vs Virender Singh[6], the advocate who otherwise indulged himself in causing a disparaging and outrageous attack on a High Court judge. In addition, another application was made by the advocate who was also an election petitioner. He put forth his stance in the court of law thereby praying for a stay order for being able to establish his arguments in such election petitions and was also looking forward to initiating the transfer of such election petitions.

The court held that it was all an attempt in order to intimidate the concerned judge of the court. Moreover, all his efforts were unambiguously aimed at causing an interface in the conduct of fair trial, as added by the court. The court however stated that it was all an act in order to frustrate and thereafter intimidate the concerned judge of the court. Furthermore, all his efforts were undoubtedly directed to bring about an interface in the conduct of fair trial, as furthered by the court.
 
Consequences for Contempt of Court: Understanding the Penalties
Primarily, both Articles 129 and 215 of the constitution empower the state's highest court of appeal i.e., the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts to address and impose penalization in the form of punishments in instances of contempt.

Taking into due consideration of the statutory enactment of contempt of Courts Act of 1971, and Section 12 which provides for punishments for instances dealing with contempt of courts. Hence, the section incorporates both the aspects of punishments as in the nature and extent of such prescribed punishments.

The above section expressly holds that the offense constituting 'contempt' shall be punished either through the sentencing of simple imprisonment as in a minimum period of 6 months, or a fine of Rs 2000 or both. The section makes it adequately pertinent that such punishments shall not exceed the stipulated period of 6 months under any circumstances whatsoever. Hence, the above period is considered the 'maximum' tenure of punishment that can be prescribed by courts operating in cases involving contempt.

Furthermore, Section 12 specifically provides that punishment involving imprisonment shall only be imposed after the court has dealt with each and every minute aspect of the case. The Court believes that this form of punishment aligns with the goal of ensuring justice, hence achieved. In the case of Smt. Pushpaben and another vs Narandas V. Badiani and another[7], the SC had clearly stated that the Act ensures the courts with special powers to impose imprisonment. The court, however, must ensure to provide proper reasoning while ruling such sentences.

The courts need to establish that they have applied proper application of mind. Hence, in light of each arising facts and circumstances, it is of the opinion that such a punishment shall be sustained in the best interest. The court added that while sentencing of fine is the rule ordinarily imposed in most cases, imprisonment remains an exception.

In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the court while dealing with the factual aspect of the case upheld that imprisonment shall only be imposed provided that such contempt is of a serious nature and likely interfere with the overall administration of justice. When deciding whether to impose imprisonment, it is crucial to take into account both the offender's level of culpability and the purpose behind the contemptuous action.

Furthermore, Section 10 of the Act gives the High Courts of the country, the inherent jurisdiction and relevant authority to prescribe punishment for contempt, which are subordinate to it as well.
 
Contempt Proceedings
The Contempt of Court Act, of 1971 outlines two key sections related to the procedures for contempt proceedings. One section addresses procedures specifically for contempt occurring in the presence of a court of record, while the other deals with procedures for contempt that occur outside of such a court. Specifically, Section 14 of the Act details the procedure for contempt occurring in the presence of a court of record, while Section 15 covers the procedures for contempt that happen outside of these courts.

Courts of record have the inherent authority to address and punish contempt of court. These courts, recognized as such, can establish their own procedures for handling contempt cases, provided that these procedures are fair and reasonable.[8] The contemnor must be given a proper chance to defend themselves through legal representation.

To hold someone accountable for contempt, the specific allegations must be clearly stated, and the individual must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to these charges. If a person accused of contempt requests, either verbally or in writing, that their case be heard by a different judge than the one before whom the contempt is alleged to have occurred, and if the court agrees that this change is necessary for justice, the case may be reassigned to a judge chosen by the Chief Justice or presented to the Chief Justice along with the relevant facts of the case.[9] 

Scope of Punishment for Contempt of Courts

• In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court examined its inherent authority to punish for contempt and clarified that:
  • While Parliament or state legislatures can enact laws regarding contempt, such laws cannot diminish the Supreme Court's power under Article 129.
  • As a court of record, the Supreme Court possesses inherent power to punish contempt, which legislation cannot alter.
• The Court distinguished between the contempt powers of the Supreme Court (SC) and High Courts (HC):
  • The statute does not address the SC's authority to address and punish contempt of itself.
  • The Act does not specifically mention the Supreme Court, and Section 15 only outlines procedural aspects.
• While the Act provides guidelines on punishment, it does not limit the SC's punitive authority:
  • In Sukhdev Singh v. Hon'ble C.J.S. Teja Singh & Ors (1954), it was ruled that statutory punishments apply to HCs but not SCs.
  • The SC's contempt powers remain unaffected by the 1971 Act.

Sanctions for Professional Misconduct: Penalties for Advocates Under the Advocates Act, 1961

• Under the Advocates Act, 1961, an advocate found guilty of professional misconduct may face:
  • Suspension or removal from practice.
  • In Vijay Chandra Mishra, the SC initiated proceedings to suspend a senior advocate's license for contempt.
  • However, in Supreme Court Bar Association v. UOI, the SC ruled that while it can address contempt cases, it cannot suspend an advocate's license.
  • The Act states that disciplinary actions must be handled by the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India.

Penalties for Professional Misconduct: Disciplinary Actions Under the Advocates Act, 1961

• Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, outlines professional misconduct procedures:
  • Complaints are transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the relevant State Bar Council.
  • If necessary, cases may be transferred to another state's Disciplinary Committee.
• Upon receiving a complaint, the Committee provides the accused advocate with a fair hearing. Possible actions include:
  • Dismiss the Complaint: If found to be without merit.
  • File Proceedings: If initiated by the State Bar Council.
  • Reprimand: A formal warning.
  • Suspend: Temporary suspension from practice.
  • Remove from Roll: Permanent removal from the state's advocate roll.

It is pertinent to note that the authority to suspend or remove an advocate from practice lies solely with the disciplinary committee, not with either the HC or even the SC. Furthermore, the SC's power to punish for contempt of court, while extensive, does not extend to matters of professional misconduct such as suspending or removing an advocate. The Court has clarified that its contempt powers do not encompass disciplinary actions against advocates for professional misconduct.

Delving into the case of N. Dutta Majumdar vs Anil Kumar Bose,[11] which inherently involved the Bar Council of West Bengal. Moreover, the SC was put forth with the contention whether the relevant authority as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, which had issued an 'order of suspension' against a particular advocate could be constituted within the definition of a 'court' under the statutory enactment of the Act, 1971.
Furthermore, the Court cleared the contention stating that the Committee exercises judicial-like functions, however, it cannot be termed as a court that is subordinate to the High Court, as far as contempt proceedings are considered. Hence, its decision shall not be put at par with that of contempt proceedings under the Act.
 

H. M. Seervai, A Distinguished vs UOI [12]

H. M. Seervai is a name well-known in the legal profession. He is referred to as an eminent jurist and has been quoted by the SC in the case of Harish Uppal vs UOI,[13] it was reported that:
"It falls within the responsibility of the 'judiciary' to discharge its duties and functions in an effective manner. The judiciary should be working in the true spirit of the same set of discretionary powers that it has been entrusted with. Moreover, it is in a position to ensure that the dignity and the authority of courts are protected at all costs. If such a position is not ensured, the basic foundation on which the country functions shall cripple leading to a violation of the rule of law."

In the case of Vijay Chandra Mishra, it was established that practicing lawyers do not have the right to initiate strikes or call for boycotts, including token strikes. Additionally, no Bar Council or Bar Association has the authority to organize meetings with the intent of considering such strikes or boycotts under any circumstances. This implies that courts are not required to postpone hearings merely because lawyers have called for a strike; rather, courts should proceed with their scheduled cases in the absence of the lawyers.

The case also underscored that although State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India have the inherent authority to address professional misconduct, this is distinct from the courts' disciplinary jurisdiction in contempt matters. Thus, these two forms of jurisdiction operate independently of each other.
 

Defenses Made Available

The various available defenses that are ensured to an advocate have been provided under Sections 3 to 8 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

• Section 3: Provides for innocent publication and ensures that the distribution of such material is not considered contempt. It upholds:
  • If an individual is not found guilty for publishing matters that interfere with the administration of justice, provided they were unaware of the pending nature of the case.
  • Matters related to civil or criminal proceedings do not constitute contempt if the proceedings are not pending in the court.
  • The inherent knowledge of the pendency of the case is a prerequisite to holding a person accountable.
  • For publication and distribution to be considered 'innocent', the following conditions must be met:
    1. The accused had reasonable grounds to believe that the proceedings were pending at the time of publication.
    2. The proceedings were not pending at the time of publication.
    3. The accused had no reasonable grounds to believe that the distributed material was disrespectful towards the court.
        
• Section 4: A person will not be deemed guilty if they provide a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings, ensuring public access to judicial information while respecting privacy.
• Section 5: Addresses the right to free and fair criticism. Fair criticism, conducted in good faith and without malicious intent, does not constitute contempt.
• Section 6: States that making a statement about a presiding officer in good faith does not amount to contempt.
• Section 8: Recognizes bona fide defenses, stating that valid defenses cannot be deemed invalid merely because they are not explicitly provided under the Act.

The Prashant Bhushan Case

In the case of Prashant Bhushan & Anr., the Supreme Court found senior advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt based on two tweets deemed outrageous and derogatory towards the judiciary. The court relied on precedents, including:

• Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953): Defined scandalizing the judiciary as making improper remarks that erode public confidence in the legal system.

The Court also noted C. K. Daphtary v. O. P. Gupta [15]wherein publications that are against the judiciary and which also provisions challenging its authority and functioning also amount to contempt. It was determined that Bhushan's tweets tarnished the reputation of high-profile individuals including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the SC, potentially diminishing public confidence in the judicial system and undermining the respect for the institutional framework.

Conclusion
The overall scope of civil contempt ensures that those individuals who exert disobedience to the orders issued by an appropriate court are called upon. They are held guilty of having committed certain acts such as deliberately neglecting such orders which significantly impact the public's trust and faith within the judicial framework of the country.

People under such circumstances are likely to put forth questions on the administration of justice as employed by these courts. The inherent feelings of confidence and faith that the citizens have on the legal structure of the country would be done away with, if efforts are not made by the courts. These measures are crucial for securing the threads of the rule of law, followed in our country.

Experts in the legal profession are of the opinion that the various instances of criminal contempt should at least be reconsidered if not completely abolished. A significant number of these individuals have argued that it is crucial to prevent the misuse of these laws, which could be used as a pretext to limit the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19.