BharatNotes What is Contempt of Court?
Contempt of court is conduct that defies or disrespects a court of law, thereby obstructing the administration of justice. In India it draws on two sources: the inherent power of the higher judiciary as "courts of record" under Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts), reinforced by Article 142(2); and the statutory framework of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Crucially, contempt is one of the express grounds under Article 19(2) on which reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).
Civil vs Criminal Contempt
The 1971 Act draws a sharp line between two categories.
| Aspect | Civil Contempt — Sec 2(b) | Criminal Contempt — Sec 2(c) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or breach of an undertaking given to a court | Publication or act that scandalises the court, prejudices a judicial proceeding, or obstructs the administration of justice |
| Harm | Disobedience of a specific order | Lowering the authority/dignity of the court generally |
| Example | Ignoring a court injunction | Alleging bias against judges |
Punishment (Section 12): simple imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. The contemnor may be discharged or the punishment remitted on a bona fide apology to the court's satisfaction.
Defences and Safeguards
The Act builds in protections so that the offence does not become a blanket gag on legitimate criticism:
- Innocent publication (Sec 3) — no contempt if the person had no reasonable grounds to believe a proceeding was pending.
- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings is excluded from contempt.
- Fair comment (Sec 5) on the merits of a case finally decided is permitted.
- Truth as a defence (Sec 13, inserted by the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006) — courts may permit justification by truth if it is in the public interest and the request is bona fide.
Current Status and Debate
The chief criticism targets "scandalising the court," seen as vague and a potential "chilling effect" on free speech; England and Wales abolished the analogous offence in 2013. However, the Law Commission of India's 274th Report (2018), chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan, recommended retaining criminal contempt, reasoning the offence is still actively used in India.
The tension surfaced sharply in In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020), where the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance over two tweets, convicted the advocate of criminal contempt, and imposed a token fine of ₹1. Courts have also held (Re: Vijay Kurle, 2020) that the SC's Article 129 power is inherent and not curtailed by the 1971 Act. As recently as 2025, the Kerala High Court upheld the Contempt of Courts Act as a reasonable restriction on free speech that does not violate Articles 19 or 20(3).
Don't confuse: civil contempt (disobeying an order) with criminal contempt (scandalising/obstructing justice)—a frequently tested distinction.
