What is Contempt of Court?
Any kind of behaviour which does not comply with the customs of the court or the traditions of the court which does not maintain a dignity that disrespects the court and its procedures can be termed as Contempt of Court. It is not necessary that contempt is restricted to an Advocate or the client. But each & every person present in the court during its proceedings misbehaves makes contempt applicable to that respective person. Such wrongful acts may be committed by attorneys, court officers, witnesses, protestors, parties involved & so on. It can include witness tampering, evidence tampering, interruption of proceedings and prevents the court from its normal progression.
Types of Contempt of Court –
In India, there are usually two types of contempt of court. They are Civil & Criminal Contempt of Court.
In Civil Contempt, it is not usually of complex nature & is not of serious nature relatively. It is usually just hampering of the court procedures & its proceedings which could be due to improper behaviour or conduct towards the judge or improper dress code & similar other offences of the same nature.
In Criminal Contempt, it tends to scandalise or tends to lower the authority of any court which could be an attempt to misinterpret the ongoing matter in the court which could lead to a wrong judgement. Physical assaults or recording of court proceedings without intimation or proper authority amounts to Criminal Contempt of Court.
Difference between Civil & Criminal Contempt –
| Civil Contempt of Court | Criminal Contempt of Court |
| Covered under S. 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. | Covered under S. 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. |
| Wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ, etc. | Publication through any medium through any representation of any performance or the act itself. |
| Contains less seriousness. | Very serious & aggrevated in nature. |
| Mostly, most of the contempt is done by judgement debtor. | Court usually itself takes the cognizance of the case, immediately after the contempt. |
| The solidity of proof needed is less with respect to that of criminal contempt. | The proof in such case required needs to be concrete as it can unnecessarily defame the suspect. |
| Apology could be the best defence in case of this contempt. Usually, the courts also ask for the same. | Courts may accept apology but not setaside the punishment entirely but may reduce it. Also, Court orders to pay the decretal amount. If he fails to pay such amount, it is said to have that he committed the contempt. |
| Majority of Civil Contempts are violation of court orders. | Majority are direct contempts causing disrespect to the court. |
| Mens rea is essential for proving Civil Contempt. | Mens rea need not be proved because it naturally becomes the root of Criminal Contempt. |
| In Civil Contempt, Court gives the opportunity to the person to correct/rectify the mistake done by him. | There is no excuse in Criminal Contempt & the court does not reconsider another chance to the person. But in genuine circumstances, court may allow to put forth circumstances for justification. |
| Generally, the aggrieved party due to the acts of the contemnor brings to the notice of the court through a notice. | The Court can directly make out the contempt caused by the person & usually is realised without any preceding application. |
Conclusion
The ultimate goal & the last hope for seeking justice is the court in any country. If the courts itself don’t follow certain rules, regulations & discipline, then the judiciary system won’t remain stable which in-turn will also affect justice-seeking mechanism. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 thus defines contempt in its both the forms. This provision helps the judiciary to lawfully detain the contemnor without being questioned by the society & thus helps in achieving a disciplinary system with respect to justice. Also, it protects the dignity of the court & the due administration of justice.
Article by Mr. Saurabh Pawar in April, 2021 while interning at the Chambers of Advocate Shankarlal Raheja.
Disclaimer: The views herein are personal and while careful attention has been given to ensure that the information is accurate the author assumes no liability or responsibility for any reliance thereon. This article is merely an information-sharing activity and is not a substitute for legal advice. It must be noted that we shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused due to any reliance thereof.