Contempt of Court in India: Civil, Criminal & Penalties Explained

{/* Internal link suggestions: /practice-areas/civil-litigation, /book-appointment, /blog/file-civil-suit-india, /blog/writ-petition-india, /blog/pil-public-interest-litigation-india */}

Introduction

The power to punish for **contempt of court** is one of the most significant and inherent powers vested in the judiciary. It serves a dual purpose: to uphold the **dignity and authority of the courts** and to ensure **compliance with court orders**. Without this power, the administration of justice would be rendered ineffective, as courts would have no means to enforce their orders or protect their institutional integrity.

In India, the law of contempt is governed primarily by the **Contempt of Courts Act, 1971**, supplemented by the constitutional provisions of **Article 129** (Supreme Court as a court of record with power to punish for contempt) and **Article 215** (High Courts as courts of record with power to punish for contempt). The law was significantly amended in **2006** by the **Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006**, which introduced **truth as a valid defence** to criminal contempt proceedings.

The law of contempt walks a delicate line between protecting judicial authority and preserving the fundamental right to **freedom of speech and expression** under **Article 19(1)(a)** of the Constitution. This tension was dramatically highlighted in the **Prashant Bhushan contempt case (2020)**, which brought the law of contempt into the national spotlight.

This article provides a comprehensive educational overview of the law of contempt of court in India -- the types of contempt (civil and criminal), the statutory framework, penalties, procedure, defences, the 2006 Amendment introducing truth as a defence, and landmark judicial pronouncements.

---

Constitutional Basis

The power to punish for contempt is rooted in the Constitution:

Article 129: Supreme Court

> *"The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."*

Article 215: High Courts

> *"Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself."*

Article 19(2): Reasonable Restriction

**Article 19(2)** provides that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions, including restrictions in relation to **contempt of court**. This establishes that the law of contempt is a constitutionally recognised ground for restricting free speech.

Article 142(2): Supreme Court's Power

**Article 142(2)** provides that the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for securing the attendance of any person, discovery or production of documents, or investigation or punishment of any **contempt of itself**.

---

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The **Contempt of Courts Act, 1971** is the principal legislation governing contempt of court in India. It came into force on **December 24, 1971**, replacing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The Act defines contempt, classifies it into civil and criminal contempt, prescribes penalties, and lays down the procedure for contempt proceedings.

Definition of Contempt -- Section 2

**Section 2(a)** defines "contempt of court" as civil contempt or criminal contempt.

---

Civil Contempt -- Section 2(b)

**Section 2(b)** defines civil contempt as:

> *"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."*

The essential elements of civil contempt are:

1. There must be a **judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process** of a court, or an **undertaking** given to a court

2. The disobedience or breach must be **wilful** -- meaning deliberate, intentional, and with knowledge of the court's order

3. The contemnor must have had **notice** of the order

Key Principles of Civil Contempt

**Wilful disobedience**: The Supreme Court in **Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 332** held that "wilful" means a deliberate and intentional act in breach of the court's order. Mere inability to comply is not contempt -- the disobedience must be contumacious.

**Knowledge of the order**: The person alleged to be in contempt must have **knowledge** of the court's order. Disobedience of an order of which a person had no notice does not constitute contempt. The Supreme Court in **Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Augustin (2001) 4 SCC 269** held that proof of knowledge is essential.

**Substantial compliance**: If there is **substantial compliance** with the court's order, even if not literal compliance, the court may not treat it as contempt. The test is whether the contemnor has acted in good faith to comply.

**Government officers**: Government officials and public authorities are frequently held in contempt for non-compliance with court orders. The Supreme Court has taken a strong view on government contempt, observing in **Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid v. Commissioner of Police (2009)** that the State is bound by court orders as much as any private citizen.

---

Criminal Contempt -- Section 2(c)

**Section 2(c)** defines criminal contempt as:

> *"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:*

> *(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or*

> *(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or*

> *(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."*

Criminal contempt thus covers three categories:

1. Scandalising the Court

This involves making statements, publishing material, or engaging in conduct that undermines the **dignity, authority, or reputation** of a court or its judges. The rationale is not to protect individual judges from criticism but to preserve **public confidence in the judiciary**.

The Supreme Court in **Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. (1954) SCR 1169** observed:

> *"The law of contempt is not for the protection of judges but for the protection of the administration of justice."*

However, the Court has also recognised that **fair and reasonable criticism** of judicial conduct is not contempt. The distinction between legitimate criticism and scandalising the court is crucial.

2. Prejudicing or Interfering with Judicial Proceedings

This covers acts that tend to **prejudice** the outcome of pending proceedings, such as:

- **Trial by media**: Publishing material that creates prejudice in the minds of judges or jurors before or during trial

- **Influencing witnesses**: Threatening, intimidating, or attempting to influence witnesses

- **Interfering with parties**: Obstructing parties from pursuing or defending their cases

3. Obstructing the Administration of Justice

This is a residuary category covering any act that **obstructs** or interferes with the administration of justice, such as:

- **Threatening judges**

- **Refusing to comply with court procedures**

- **Misbehaviour in court premises**

- **Tampering with court records**

---

What Does NOT Constitute Contempt -- Section 3-7

The Act carves out several exceptions:

Section 3: Innocent Publication

An innocent publication or distribution of material relating to **pending proceedings** is not contempt if:

- The person had **no reasonable grounds** for believing that proceedings were pending at the time of publication

- The person exercised **due care and caution** in the publication

Section 4: Fair and Accurate Report

A **fair and accurate report** of a judicial proceeding is not contempt, unless the court has specifically prohibited publication of the proceedings (e.g., in camera proceedings). This protects **court reporting** by the media.

Section 5: Fair Criticism

A person is not guilty of contempt for publishing **fair comment** on the merits of a case that has been **heard and finally decided**. This protects the right to critically analyse and comment on judicial decisions.

Section 6: Complaint Against a Presiding Officer

A **complaint** made in good faith against a presiding officer to a higher court or appropriate authority is not contempt.

Section 7: Subordinate Courts

No High Court shall take cognizance of contempt alleged to have been committed with respect to a court subordinate to it where the alleged contempt is a **contempt of court on the face of it** and is amenable to summary punishment by the subordinate court itself.

---

Truth as a Defence -- The 2006 Amendment

Before the 2006 Amendment

Before 2006, **truth was not a defence** to criminal contempt proceedings. This meant that even a true statement that scandalised the court could constitute contempt. This position was criticised as being inconsistent with the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006

The **Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006** introduced **Section 13(b)**, which provides:

> *"The court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide."*

This means that truth is now a **qualified defence** -- it can be invoked if:

1. The court is **satisfied** that the defence is in **public interest**

2. The request is **bona fide** (made in good faith)

The court retains **discretion** in permitting this defence -- it is not an absolute right. The court will consider whether the publication of the true statement served a legitimate public purpose or was motivated by malice.

---

Penalties for Contempt -- Section 12

**Section 12** prescribes the penalties for contempt:

- **Simple imprisonment** for a term which may extend to **six months**

- **Fine** which may extend to **Rs. 2,000**

- **Both** imprisonment and fine

The Court may, if satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that a **fine will meet the ends of justice**, impose only a fine. The court may also discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment if the contemnor apologises to the satisfaction of the court.

Conditional Discharge -- Section 12(1) Proviso

The proviso to Section 12(1) provides that the **accused may be discharged** or the punishment may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. An **unconditional apology** is the most common way contempt proceedings are resolved. However, the apology must be **genuine and sincere**, not a mere formality.

---

Procedure for Contempt Proceedings

Initiation

Contempt proceedings can be initiated:

1. **Suo motu** by the court itself

2. On a **motion** by the Advocate General or Solicitor General (for criminal contempt in High Courts -- Section 15(1)(a))

3. On a **petition** by any person with the consent of the Advocate General/Solicitor General (Section 15(1)(b))

4. On a **reference** by a subordinate court (Section 15(2))

For the **Supreme Court**, the Attorney General or Solicitor General must consent to the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings (Section 15).

Procedure

1. **Notice to the contemnor**: The court issues a notice to the alleged contemnor requiring them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt

2. **Hearing**: The contemnor has the right to be heard, either in person or through a lawyer

3. **Evidence**: Evidence may be led by both sides

4. **Order**: The court passes an order either convicting or acquitting the contemnor

Limitation -- Section 20

**Section 20** provides that no court shall initiate proceedings for contempt, either of its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of **one year** from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

Appeal -- Section 19

**Section 19** provides for an appeal:

- From an order of a **High Court** in contempt proceedings, an appeal lies to the **Supreme Court**

- The appeal must be filed within **30 days** from the date of the order

- An appeal from the order of a **single judge** of a High Court lies to a **division bench** of the same High Court

---

Landmark Judgments

1. In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) -- Suo Motu Contempt Case

This is the most prominent contempt case in recent Indian judicial history. The Supreme Court took **suo motu** cognizance of two tweets by **Advocate Prashant Bhushan** -- one criticising the Chief Justice of India and the other commenting on the role of the last four Chief Justices in the "destruction of democracy."

A three-judge bench held Prashant Bhushan **guilty of criminal contempt** for scandalising the Supreme Court. The Court observed that while fair criticism is permissible, the tweets constituted a "malicious, scurrilous, and scandalous" attack on the judiciary.

However, in the sentencing order, the Court imposed a **symbolic fine of Re. 1** (one rupee), with the alternative of three months' imprisonment and debarment from legal practice for three years. Prashant Bhushan paid the fine.

The case generated widespread debate about the limits of free speech vis-a-vis judicial authority and whether the offence of "scandalising the court" should be abolished (as it has been in the United Kingdom under the Crime and Courts Act, 2013).

2. Re: Vijay Kurle (2020)

The Supreme Court convicted advocate Vijay Kurle for criminal contempt for making "scurrilous" allegations against Supreme Court judges and sentenced him to **three months' imprisonment**.

3. Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374

The Supreme Court held that a judge of a High Court can be held in contempt for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Supreme Court. The Court convicted a former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court for contempt.

4. Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 633

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to punish for contempt is a **constitutional power** inherent in the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the Contempt of Courts Act merely **regulates** the procedure for its exercise.

5. Re: Arundhati Roy (2002)

The Supreme Court convicted author and activist Arundhati Roy for criminal contempt for her affidavit filed in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case, which the Court found to be scandalous. She was sentenced to **one day's simple imprisonment** and a fine of Rs. 2,000.

6. Duda v. Sher Singh (1993) 3 SCC 300

The Supreme Court held that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with **restraint and circumspection**. The Court observed that the judges should not be "thin-skinned" and should be able to withstand robust criticism. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when the criticism crosses the line into scandalising the court.

---

Contempt of Subordinate Courts

While subordinate courts (district courts, magistrate courts) have the power to punish for contempt committed in their **face** (contempt in facie curiae), they generally cannot initiate contempt proceedings on their own for out-of-court contempt. For contempt of subordinate courts:

- The subordinate court may **refer** the matter to the High Court under Section 15(2)

- The **High Court** then takes cognizance and proceeds as if it were contempt of the High Court itself

- The High Court has the power to punish for contempt of any subordinate court under **Article 215** read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is contempt of court?

Contempt of court is the wilful disobedience to a court order (**civil contempt**) or any act that scandalises a court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice (**criminal contempt**), as defined under **Sections 2(b) and 2(c)** of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

What is the difference between civil and criminal contempt?

**Civil contempt** involves wilful disobedience to a court order or breach of an undertaking given to a court. **Criminal contempt** involves scandalising a court, prejudicing judicial proceedings, or obstructing the administration of justice. Civil contempt is remedial (aimed at compelling compliance), while criminal contempt is punitive (aimed at preserving judicial authority).

What is the punishment for contempt of court?

Under **Section 12**, the punishment for contempt is **simple imprisonment up to six months** and/or a **fine up to Rs. 2,000**. The court may impose only a fine if it considers that sufficient. The contemnor may be discharged if they tender a sincere apology.

Is truth a defence to contempt?

Yes, after the **2006 Amendment**. **Section 13(b)** allows truth as a valid defence in criminal contempt proceedings, provided the court is satisfied that the defence is in **public interest** and the request is **bona fide**. However, this is a qualified defence at the court's discretion.

Can the Supreme Court punish for contempt?

Yes. **Article 129** of the Constitution and **Section 14** of the Contempt of Courts Act empower the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself. The Supreme Court can also punish for contempt of any court in India under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

What happened in the Prashant Bhushan contempt case?

The Supreme Court in **In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020)** held advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for two tweets criticising the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court. He was sentenced to a symbolic fine of **Re. 1** (one rupee).

Can fair criticism of a judge be contempt?

No. **Section 5** of the Act protects **fair comment** on the merits of a decided case. Similarly, courts have held that **fair and reasonable criticism** of judicial conduct is not contempt. However, criticism that is malicious, scandalous, or undermines public confidence in the judiciary may constitute criminal contempt.

What is the limitation period for contempt proceedings?

Under **Section 20**, contempt proceedings must be initiated within **one year** from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. After one year, the court cannot take cognizance.

Can a government official be punished for contempt?

Yes. Government officials who **wilfully disobey** court orders can be held in civil contempt and punished with imprisonment and fine. The Supreme Court has frequently held government officers in contempt for non-compliance with court orders.

Can I appeal a contempt order?

Yes. Under **Section 19**, an appeal lies from the order of a High Court in contempt proceedings to the **Supreme Court** within **30 days**. An appeal from a single judge order lies to a division bench of the same High Court.

---

*Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, a solicitation, or an advertisement. The information provided is based on Indian laws as of the date of publication and may be subject to change through legislative amendments, judicial pronouncements, or executive notifications. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this article without seeking professional legal advice tailored to their specific facts and circumstances. For personalised guidance, please consult a qualified advocate.*