Overview
- Enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing for contempt.
- Applies to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Supplements constitutional provisions under Article 129 and Article 215.
- Aims to balance judicial authority with freedom of speech.
Meaning of Contempt
Contempt refers to acts that:
- Disrespect or undermine the authority of courts.
- Obstruct or interfere with administration of justice.
- Disobey court orders.
Types of Contempt
Civil Contempt
- Wilful disobedience of:
- Court judgments
- Decrees
- Orders
- Directions
- Writs
- Also includes breach of undertakings given to a court.
Criminal Contempt
Includes publication or acts that:
- Scandalise or lower the authority of any court.
- Prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings.
- Obstruct the administration of justice.
Punishment
- Simple imprisonment up to six months, or
- Fine up to ₹2,000, or
- Both.
Courts may discharge the accused or remit punishment if an apology is made and accepted.
Defences Available
The Act recognises certain valid defences:
- Innocent publication and distribution.
- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings.
- Fair criticism of judicial acts.
- Truth as a defence (added by 2006 amendment), if:
- It is in public interest.
- It is made in good faith.
Limitation Period
- Proceedings must be initiated within one year from the date of alleged contempt.
Key Features
- High Courts can punish for contempt of subordinate courts.
- Supreme Court and High Courts retain inherent powers under the Constitution.
- Act does not curtail constitutional contempt powers.
Significance
- Maintains authority and dignity of the judiciary.
- Ensures compliance with judicial orders.
- Protects administration of justice from obstruction.
- Seeks to strike a balance between judicial independence and democratic freedoms.
Contemporary Concerns
- Debate over scope of “scandalising the court”.
- Questions on compatibility with freedom of speech.
- Appellate Body-type concerns internationally about judicial accountability versus authority.
The Act remains a key pillar in preserving the integrity of India’s judicial system while accommodating constitutional freedoms.
