Contempt Powers Of Criminal Courts
I. Introduction to Contempt of Court
Contempt of court is an act that disrespects, disobeys, or interferes with the authority, justice, or dignity of the court. It is essential to maintain the supremacy and effectiveness of the judicial system.
Types of Contempt:
Civil Contempt: Willful disobedience of a court order or judgment.
Criminal Contempt: Acts which scandalize or lower the authority of the court or obstruct the administration of justice.
Criminal courts have the power to punish contempt under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under their inherent jurisdiction.
II. Contempt Powers of Criminal Courts
Inherent Power: Criminal courts have inherent powers to punish for contempt to uphold respect and ensure the proper administration of justice.
Summon and Punish: The court can summon a person for contempt and impose punishment summarily (imprisonment up to 6 months, fine, or both).
Types of Criminal Contempt Relevant to Criminal Courts:
Scandalizing the Court (publication or act that lowers the authority of the court)
Interference with Judicial Process (e.g., influencing witnesses, tampering evidence)
Disobedience of Court Orders
Publication of prejudicial material during ongoing trial (Trial by media)
Constitutional Backing: Under Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts), and Statutory under Contempt of Courts Act.
III. Key Legal Provisions
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Section 12: Power of High Courts and Supreme Court to punish for contempt.
Section 15: Courts other than Supreme Court and High Courts have power to punish contempt as per their rules.
Criminal Procedure Code (for enforcement of contempt orders).
Article 21 (Right to fair trial) must be balanced against contempt powers.
IV. Landmark Case Laws
1. Re: Arundhati Roy, (2002) 3 SCC 409
Facts:
Arundhati Roy was held guilty of contempt for publishing an article criticizing the judiciary and disclosing details of court proceedings.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that contempt power must be used sparingly but protected the dignity of courts. Criticism is allowed but it must not interfere with justice or lower the authority of the court.
Key Principle:
Freedom of speech must be balanced against judicial dignity and administration of justice.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the validity of contempt law as a necessary tool to protect the authority of courts and ensure effective justice. However, it recognized the need to protect legitimate criticism.
Key Principle:
Contempt powers are constitutionally valid, but must not curtail free speech unduly.
3. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
Facts:
A publication was challenged for contempt on grounds of criticism against the government and judiciary.
Judgment:
The Court held that freedom of speech and expression is fundamental, but cannot extend to acts that endanger public order or court dignity.
Key Principle:
Contempt laws serve the larger interest of justice and order.
4. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584
Facts:
The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of contempt powers of courts and limitations.
Judgment:
The Court laid down that contempt powers must be exercised with restraint and caution. Contempt proceedings should not be used to stifle legitimate criticism or delay justice.
Key Principle:
Contempt is a shield, not a weapon for the judiciary.
5. State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawal, AIR 1991 SC 420
Facts:
An accused tried to interfere with witnesses, amounting to contempt of court.
Judgment:
The Court emphasized that acts that interfere with the judicial process or obstruct justice constitute contempt and warrant punishment.
Key Principle:
Contempt extends to any conduct that obstructs the administration of justice.
6. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268
Facts:
Contempt proceedings against judges and advocates.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of judicial independence and the need for contempt powers to protect the courts from scandal and obstructions.
Key Principle:
Contempt power is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
7. Bombay High Court Bar Association v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 257
Facts:
Regarding contempt jurisdiction of subordinate courts.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that subordinate courts have contempt powers within their jurisdiction, but such powers should be exercised sparingly.
Key Principle:
Contempt powers are not limited to higher courts alone.
V. Summary: Contempt Powers of Criminal Courts
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Powers | Inherent and statutory |
| Purpose | Protect dignity, authority, and administration of justice |
| Punishment | Up to 6 months imprisonment, fine, or both (summarily) |
| Scope | Scandalizing court, interference, disobedience, prejudicial reporting |
| Limits | Must balance free speech and fair trial rights |
| Courts with Powers | Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate criminal courts |
| Procedure | Summary trial, but accused must be given opportunity to defend |
VI. Conclusion
The contempt powers of criminal courts serve as an indispensable tool to safeguard the administration of justice. However, these powers must be exercised judiciously, sparingly, and with respect to constitutional freedoms, especially the right to free speech and fair trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments