Contempt of Court in India

• 07 Nov 2025

Source: TH 

Why in News? 

The recent controversy over derogatory remarks made against the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court(SC) has sparked a debate about the limits of free speech and the administration of justice in India.  

• The demand to initiate contempt proceedings against those responsible has brought the issue of contempt of contempt to the forefront.

What Amounts to Contempt of Court in India, & What are the Landmark Judgments Related to It? 

• Contempt of Court Act, 1971: In India, contempt of court is defined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (enacted based on the recommendations of the HN Sanyal Committee 1963), which divides contempt into two categories: 
  • Civil Contempt: Defined as willful disobedience of any court order, decree, or judgment, or breach of an undertaking given to the court. 
  • Criminal Contempt: Defined as actions that scandalize or lower the authority of any court, or interfere with judicial proceedings.  
    • This includes the publication of materials (in any form—written, spoken, or visual) that can damage the court’s reputation or hinder the administration of justice. 
• Constitutional Basis: The SC and High Courts(HC) are designated as courts of record under Articles 129 and 215, respectively.  
  • A court of record maintains its decisions for future reference and possesses the inherent power to punish for contempt, as outlined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 
• Objective: To uphold the authority, dignity, and effective functioning of the judiciary by preventing acts that disrespect, obstruct, or undermine the courts, thereby ensuring their independent and fair operation without interference. 
• Initiation of Contempt Proceedings: The process for starting contempt action is specifically defined in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 
  • Suo Motu Power: The HC or SC can initiate proceedings on its own motion (suo moto) if it believes a contempt has been committed. 
  • Third-Party Petition: A third party can also file a petition, but it requires the prior consent of the Attorney General (for the Supreme Court) or the Advocate General (for a High Court). 
• Punishment: The Act provides that a person found guilty of contempt of court may face simple imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to Rs 2,000, or both.  
  • However, the court may exempt the accused if a satisfactory apology is offered. 
• Landmark Judgments Related to Fair Criticism vs. Contemptuous Criticism: It is generally recognized that fair criticism of a court’s judgment does not constitute contempt. However, when such criticism crosses the limits of fairness and undermines judicial authority, it may be treated as contemptuous.  
  • In Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952), the SC held that fair criticism is permissible, but any attempt to erode the court’s authority is punishable.  
  • This view was reaffirmed in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002), where the court emphasized that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with restraint and only in cases of clear and serious violations. 
  • In M.V. Jayarajan vs. High Court of Kerala (2015), the SC held that using abusive language in public speeches while criticizing a court amounts to criminal contempt.  
  • Similarly, in Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan vs. High Court of Madras (2025), the Court emphasized that the purpose of contempt punishment is to uphold the administration of justice. 
• Relevance for Democracy: The judiciary upholds state priorities and the sanctity of justice. While citizens and media can critique courts, misrepresentation or abusive criticism that undermines authority, interferes with justice, or harms democracy is prohibited.

How Can Free Speech and the Contempt of Court Be Balanced in India? 

• Protecting Robust Criticism: The balance can be maintained by permitting strong criticism of the judiciary’s functioning to promote accountability, while restricting malicious or baseless allegations of corruption or bias that erode public confidence. 
• Preserving Judicial Authority: Fair criticism of a judgment’s reasoning or outcome is protected, but personal attacks on a judge’s character or integrity are not, as judges need protection from vilification to ensure impartial functioning. 
• "Truth" Defense as a Shield for Public Good: Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act protects truthful, public interest criticism, allowing evidence-based scrutiny of the judiciary. However, the burden of proof lies on the accuser, making it a strong but limited defense. 
• Using Contempt Power as a Last Resort: Courts should treat contempt powers as a weapon of last resort, exercising them with caution and restraint, while ensuring order compliance and preventing obstruction of justice. 

Conclusion 

Contempt of court protects the authority, dignity, and independence of the judiciary. While fair criticism is allowed, actions that undermine or obstruct justice are punishable, balancing expression and judicial integrity. 

Drishti Mains Question:

Examine the constitutional and statutory provisions governing contempt of court in India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. What is contempt of court? 
Contempt of court is any act that disrespects, obstructs, or undermines the authority, dignity, or functioning of a court, ensuring the independence and effectiveness of the judiciary. 

2. What are the types of contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971? 
Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders or breach of undertakings. 

Criminal Contempt: Acts or publications that scandalise, obstruct, or interfere with justice. 

3. What punishments can be imposed for contempt of court? 
A guilty person may face up to six months’ simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs 2,000, or both, but the court may exempt the accused if a satisfactory apology is offered. 

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQ) 

Prelims 

Q. Consider the following statements: (2022)

1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

(a) 1 and 2 only 

(b) 1, 2 and 4 

(c) 3 and 4 only 

(d) 3 only 

Ans: (b) 

---

Mains 

Q. Do you think that the Constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain. (2019)