Contempt of court is a legal concept that seeks to protect the authority and dignity of the judiciary. Contempt powers are used by courts to prevent actions that may undermine public confidence in the judiciary and punish those who interfere with the judicial process.
Distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt
As per The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wilful disobedience of a judgement or direction of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court is ‘civil contempt’.
Regarding civil contempt, in a recent case of Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs vs P. Ravi Kumar A, the Supreme Court highlighted “what would be relevant is the wilful disobedience.”
“A theoretical implementation would not amount to compliance. The implementation of the order should be substantial and said order/s should clearly reflect the intention of the authorities of its bonafides, as otherwise it has to be necessarily held that the act of State and its officers are not bonafide but tainted or malafide.”
However, ‘criminal contempt’ has stricter requirements. It involves scandalising or lowering the authority of any court, prejudicing or interfering with judicial proceedings, or interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice.
Contempt of court and right to fair hearing
The exercise of contempt powers must be balanced with the principles of natural justice, which include the right to be heard.
In the Patanjali case, the Supreme Court has also highlighted that, “The procedure adopted during the contempt proceedings must be fair and just that is to say that the principles governing the Rule of law must be extended to the party against whom contempt proceedings have been initiated. The party must have every opportunity to place its position before the Court. Such a party must not be left unheard under any circumstances.”
Contempt jurisdiction and principle of sparing use
When it comes to contempt powers, the top court has often emphasized the need for restraint and discretion in their application. In W.B. Administrative Tribunal vs SK. Monobbor Hossain case, the Supreme Court observed, “While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously.”
In the 2014 case of Sudhir Vasudeva vs George Ravishekeran, the Supreme Court observed that
“It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt.” It also pointed out that courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders concerning which contempt has been alleged.