Short title and extent — (1) This Act may be called the Contempt of Courts Act 1971
(2) It extends to the whole of India:
Provided that it shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent to which the provisions of this Act relate to contempt of the Supreme Court.
- Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —
(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) “civil contempt” means 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;
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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;
(d) “High Court” means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.
Breach of an undertaking given to a Court by a person in civil proceedings, on the faith of which the Court sanctions a course of action is misconduct amounting to contempt of court. Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, AIR 1990 S.C. 464.
The power to penalise an officer of the Court should be exercised in those cases where the order is deliberately not obeyed or compliance is not made. C.P. Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr.L.J. 125.
Advocate making libellous allegations against sitting Judges of High Court amounts to interference with administration of justice. Pritam Lal v. High Court of M.P. 1992 Cr.L.J. 1269= AIR 1992 SC 904
What it constitutes — Scandalising Court or Judge, undermining people’s confidence in administration of justice and bringing or tending to bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect tantamount to criminal contempt — Scurrilous attack on a Judge questioning his authority would amount to contempt. Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble The C.J.I., J.T. 1996(6) S.C. 529 = 1996(5) SCC 216.
Civil contempt — Where action of contemner is wilful, deliberate and in clear disregard of Court’s order, it amounts to civil contempt. Amar Bahadurising v. P.D. Wasnik and others. 1994 Cri.L.J 1359 =1994(2) Bom CR 464 (Bom)
Contempt proceedings — Initiated on basis of the report of an official — Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the report should be furnished to contemner and opportunity be afforded to put forth his say against the report. A. Dharmarajan v. Collector of Kamarajar Distt. Virduhunagar Distt. and others. 1994 Cri.L.J 3585 (Madras)
Contempt — Consequential directions — Can be issued for enforcing order. Dr. Subhash Chandra Pratihar v. Mr. Leena Chakraborty and others. 1995 Cri.L.J. 707 (Cal.)
Contempt — Sentence — The fact that the petitioner is an I.A.S officer is of no consequence so far as the sentence is concerned. J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya. 1995 Cri.L.J. 4192 (S.C)
Criminal contempt — Illegal mining — Petitioner environmental activists — Visiting area of inspection along with Committee constituted by Supreme Court — Petitioner manhandled by mine owner — Mine owner guilty of criminal contempt. Tarun Bharat Sangh Alwar v. Union of India and others. 1993 Cri.L.J. 50 = AIR 1993 SC 293 = 1992 Supp(2) SCC 750 (SC)
Breach of undertaking — Inability to vacate house as his son had become major — Stand taken found to be dishonest — Conviction ordered. Venubai Saveleram Songaonkar v. Gajanan Savleram alias Sawalaram Songaonkar and other. 1992 Cri.L.J. 1160 (Bom)
Criminal contempt — Advocates storming various court rooms — Individually and collectively stood on chairs, table and dias of Court — Prevented various lawyers from discharging their judicial functions — Are guilty of contempt of court. Court of its own motion v. B.D. Kaushik and others. 1993 Cri.L.J. 336 (Delhi)
Contempt proceedings — Are not criminal proceedings — Are proceedings of summary nature. Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association. 1991 Cri.L.J. 2722 = AIR 1991 Mad 323 (Mad)
Civil contempt — Interim order passed by Supreme Court — subsequent action in filing civil suit seeking injunction — Amounts to contempt. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another 1995 Cri.L.J. 2107 (SC)
Review — Order holding person guilty of contempt cannot be reviewed, Senior Sub-Judge. Dharamsala v. R.A. Kansal. 1991 Cri.L.J 2432 = 1991(2) Rec Cri.R. 677 (H.P)
Criminal Contempt — Notice containing allegations and scandalour remarks — Advocate who drafted notice cannot escape liability. Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of P & H. 1995 Cri.L.J. 3627 (SC)
- Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt. —(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of —
(i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in Section 5 of the said Act.
Explanation. — For the purpose of this section, a judicial proceeding —
(a) is said to be pending —
(A) in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,
(B) in the case of a criminal proceeding under the [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1895 (5 of 1898], or any other law —
(i)where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge sheet or challan is filed, or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused, and
(ii)in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding relates, and in the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or revision is preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision has expired;
(b) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed to be pending merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence passed therein are pending.
- Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt. —Subject to the provisions contained in Section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.
- Fair criticism of judicial act no contempt. —A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.
Criticism of Court when transgresses the limits of fair and bona fide criticism amounts to contempt of court. Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose, AIR 1953 S. C. 75.
- Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt. —A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to —
(a) any other subordinate court, or
(b) the High Court,
to which it is subordinate.
Explanation. — In this section “subordinate court” means any court subordinate to a High Court.
- Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases. —(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers orin camera except in the following cases, that is to say, —
(a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force;
(b) where the court, on grounds of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of information of the description which is published;
(c) where the court sits in chambers or in camera for reason connected with public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those proceedings;
(d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an issue in the proceedings.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the whole, or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera, unless the court has expressly prohibited the publication thereof grounds of public policy, or for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground that it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise of any power vested in it.
- Other defences not affected. —Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any other defence which would have been a valid defence in any proceedings for contempt of court has ceased to be available merely by reason of the provisions of this Act.
- Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt. —Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience, breach, publication or other act is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this Act.
- Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. —Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
High Court can take action for contempt of subordinate court under Section 2 of 1926 Act for defamation of the Judge though the aggrieved officer may have remedies such as Sec. 499 I.P.C. Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 S.C. 149.
High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 10 cannot interfere with the complaints filed for disobedience of breach of injunction order temporarily issued during the pendency of a suit. Shaik Mohiddin v. Section Officer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Kaiwara. 1994 Cri.L.J 3689= ILR (Kar) 1994 2513 (Kant)
- Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. —A High Court shall have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.
Contempt petition — Territorial jurisdiction — Petition can be returned for presentation to proper Court. Hari Mohan v. V.K. Mittal and another. 1995 Cri.L.J. 3186 (All).
- Punishment for contempt of court. —(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation. — An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation. — For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5) —
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
Ad interim injunction limited to specific period — No extension — No contempt if violation is alleged after expiry of stipulated period. N. Rathinasabapathy v. K.S. Palaniappa Kandar. 1995 Cri.L.J. 3622 (SC)
Criminal Contempt — newspaper article — Liability of editor extends to all acts committed pertaining to publication. B.A. Rather and another v. H.K. Dua and others. 1994 Cri.L.J. 3414 (J& K)
Illegal confinement during the period when appellant was on anticipatory bail — Act confining to prison not only atro-cious but interfering with due course of justice and amounting to deliberate attempt to obstruct administration of justice — Simple imprisonment of one month awarded for illegal confinement. Rajendra Kumar & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan and Others. 1996 Cr.R. 852 (Raj)
- Contempts not punishable in certain cases. —Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
- Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. —(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon it own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall —
(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged;
(b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;
(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and
(d) make such order for the punishment or discharged of such person as may be just.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case.
(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:
Provided further that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.
- Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. —(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by —
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, [or]
[(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.]
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.
Explanation. — In this section, the expression “Advocate-General” means —
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General” or the Solicitor-General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established.
(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
- Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially. —(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observations or remarks made by a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding a subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such judge, magistrate or the person against the order or judgment of the subordinate court.
Contempt proceedings against Judicial Officers are maintainable. Baba Abdul Khan v. Smt. A.D. Sawant. J.M.F.C., Nagpur and others, 1994 Cri.L.J. 2836 (Bom.)
- Procedure after cognizance. —(1) Notice of every proceeding under Section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise.
(2) The notice shall be accompanied —
(a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded; and
(b) in case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference.
(3) The Court may, if it is satisfied that a person charged under Section 15 is likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the attachment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable.
(4) Every attachment under sub-section (3) shall be effected in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the attachment of property in execution of a decree for payment of money, and if, after such attachment, the person charged appears and shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, the court shall order the release of his property from attachment upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit.
(5) Any person charged with contempt under Section 15 may file an affidavit in support of his defence, and the court may determine the matter of the charge either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires,
- Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches. —(1) Every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner.
- Appeals. — (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt —
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judge of the court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court.
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate court may order that —
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed —
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days,
from the date of the order appealed against.
Appeal — No appeal lies to a Division Bench against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing the application filed for contempt of Court. S. Sammaiah and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. 1994 Cri.L.J. 3830 = 1994(2) Andh LT 729= 1994 (2) APLJ 264(A.P)
- Limitation for actions for contempt. —No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Contempt proceedings — Power of High Court — Is absolute and unfettered. A. Mayilswami v. State of Kerala (FB) 1995 Cri.L.J. 3830 (Kerala)
- Act not to apply toNyaya Panchayatsor other village courts. — Nothing contained in this Act shall apply in relation to contempt of Nyaya Panchayats or other village courts, by whatever name known, for the administration of justice, established under any law.
- Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to contempt. —The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts.
- Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules. —The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.
- Repeal. —The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952), is hereby repealed.
 Now Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
 Ins. by Act No. 45 of 1976.
 Ins.by Act No. 45 of 1976.