Criminal Contempt of Court

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt involves 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. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves actions that scandalize or tend to scandalize the authority of any court, prejudice or interfere with any judicial proceeding, or obstruct the administration of justice. The key difference lies in the intent and the nature of the act.

The Act specifies that 'scandalizing' the court involves statements or actions that lower the authority or dignity of the court. This doesn't mean fair criticism of judgments. For example, a newspaper publishing an article accusing a judge of corruption without any evidence would likely be considered criminal contempt. However, a well-reasoned critique of a judgment's legal basis, even if strongly worded, would generally not be.

Interference with judicial proceedings includes actions that obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. This could involve intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, or disrupting court proceedings. For instance, if someone threatens a witness to prevent them from testifying truthfully, that would be considered criminal contempt.

The Act provides certain defenses against charges of criminal contempt. One key defense is that the statement made was fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings. Another defense, added in 2006, is that the statement was true and made in good faith for the public interest. However, the burden of proving these defenses lies with the accused.

The punishment for criminal contempt can be imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to ₹2,000, or with both. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature and gravity of the contemptuous act. The court also has the power to discharge the contemnor (the person held in contempt) upon an apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to initiate contempt proceedings either *suo motu* (on their own motion) or on a petition filed by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent of the Advocate General. This means the court can take action even if no one has formally complained, if it believes contempt has been committed.

The Act also addresses contempt committed outside the jurisdiction of the court. For example, if someone publishes a defamatory statement about a judge in a foreign country that is likely to affect the administration of justice in India, the Indian courts can still take action for criminal contempt.

There is a limitation period of one year for initiating contempt proceedings. This means that the court cannot take action for contempt if more than one year has passed since the alleged act of contempt was committed. This provision ensures that cases are dealt with in a timely manner and prevents stale claims from being pursued.

The Act exempts certain types of publications from being considered contempt. For example, a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding is not considered contempt. Similarly, a reasonable and fair comment on the merits of a case after it has been heard and decided is also not considered contempt. This ensures that freedom of the press is not unduly restricted.

The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively. These articles declare that the Supreme Court and High Courts shall be courts of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

A common misconception is that any criticism of the judiciary automatically constitutes contempt. This is not true. Only criticism that is malicious, scandalous, or tends to lower the authority of the court is considered criminal contempt. Constructive criticism aimed at improving the judicial system is generally protected.

In practice, courts are often reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings unless the act of contempt is serious and poses a real threat to the administration of justice. This is because the courts recognize the importance of freedom of speech and expression and are cautious not to stifle legitimate criticism.

The UPSC examiner often tests the understanding of the difference between civil and criminal contempt, the defenses available under the Act, and the constitutional basis for the power to punish for contempt. They may also ask about recent cases involving contempt of court and the courts' reasoning in those cases.