Article on contempt of court

Contempt of Court: It is a charge which can be laid against someone for interrupting the process of justice in a court of law When contempt of court proved, can result in fines or imprisonment.Failure to respect the court directive will lead to contempt of court.

Section 2 of Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt of court. There are two kinds of contempt of court. One is Civil nature and another is criminal nature.

Essentials
The elements generally needed to establish a contempt are:
1. the making of a valid court order,
2. knowledge of the order by respondent,
3. ability of the respondent to render compliance, and
4. wilful disobedience of the order.

Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise)of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which; scandalises, prejudices or interferes the administration of justice in any other manner. (For better clarification one has to refer the provisios of Section 2 of the Contempt of cours Act

For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which dealt with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt. Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to punish contempts of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a).

A case of contempt is C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971 1 SCC 626), the respondent published and circulated a booklet in public purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah while acting in his judicial capacity. Mr C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed a petition alleging that the booklet has scandalised the judges who participated in the decision and brought into contempt the authority of the highest court of the land and thus weakened the confidence of the people in it. The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court.

Another contempt of court case posted in CNN IBN Live.com which was reproduced below:

New Delhi: Eighteen people including four top functionaries of the West Bengal government have been convicted for contempt of court after no action was taken to help resume work in the New Jalpaiguri district court.

The Calcutta High Court on Friday sentenced the Director General of Police, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of Jalpaiguri district to six months imprisonment for criminal contempt of court.

The three faced the court's ire along with 15 others for the "constitutional breakdown" in the district during an agitation demanding setting up of a circuit bench of the High Court there.

Court proceedings were stalled for almost a month due to the protest. The bench observed that even after its order, the officers did not act to remove obstructions and road blocks, which were dismantled by the protestors themselves.

After almost a month of inaction, the High Court took suo moto cognizance and convicted 18 people. However, the court has stayed the conviction for the next three weeks.

The court directed that apart from the six months' simple imprisonment, they would have to undergo another one month's imprisonment if they fail to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.

In a scathing indictment of the state police chief A B Vohra, the court observed that he had not cared to even monitor the situation in Jalpaiguri or ask his officers to restore normalcy despite specific directions to that effect by the High Court.

Observing that Vohra and the district police officers had committed the crime of letting the protestors hold the Constitution and fundamental rights of people to ransom for a month, the bench said that it was not expected for the police chief to say in his reply that no law and order problem was created as the agitation was peaceful.

Limitation for contempt of court: The Limitation period for actions of contempt has been discussed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 and is a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.