Definition
An act or omission that disrespects, disobeys, or undermines the authority and dignity of a court, punishable by fine or imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is of two types: (a) Civil contempt — willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court; and (b) Criminal contempt — publication or act that scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding, or obstructs administration of justice. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have inherent powers of contempt; subordinate courts must apply to the High Court. Punishment: simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine up to Rs. 2000, or both.
Statutory Definition
Section 2(a), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 'Contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt.' Section 2(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.' Section 2(c): 'Criminal contempt means 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.'
Etymology & Origin
From Latin 'contemptus' (disdain, disrespect) + 'curia' (court). Contempt of court is the act of treating the court with disdain — disrespecting its authority, disobeying its orders, or undermining its processes.
Full Legal Analysis
Contempt of Court: Protecting the Administration of Justice
Courts derive their power not from physical force but from institutional authority and public trust. Contempt law protects this authority — without it, court orders would be unenforceable, witnesses could be intimidated freely, and the entire structure of civil dispute resolution would collapse. Contempt is thus not about protecting judges’ dignity but about protecting the administration of justice itself.
Civil Contempt: Disobeying Court Orders
Civil contempt is the most common form — a party who has been ordered to do something (or restrained from doing something) simply does not comply. The Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1995) 2 SCC 513 held that for civil contempt: (a) the alleged contemnor must have had knowledge of the court order; (b) the conduct must be deliberate and not merely negligent; and (c) the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose is to compel compliance, not to punish — courts often suspend contempt sentences on the contemnor purging themselves by complying.
Criminal Contempt: Scandalising the Court
Criminal contempt protects the court's public reputation and the purity of judicial proceedings. Sub-categories include: (a) Scandalising the court — making false or malicious statements about judges that lower public confidence in the judiciary; (b) Sub judice matters — publishing material (news, social media) that might prejudice a pending trial; (c) Obstruction — physically preventing court proceedings, bribing officials, intimidating witnesses.
Truth as Defence: 2006 Amendment
Prior to the 2006 amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, truth was not a defence to criminal contempt. After the amendment (Section 13), truth is a valid defence if the publication is made in the public interest and the matter is established as true. This significantly narrowed the scope of criminal contempt for journalism and legitimate public commentary on judicial conduct.
Contempt and Free Speech
The Supreme Court has grappled with the tension between contempt law and free speech (Article 19(1)(a)). In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343, the Court convicted the author for her public statements criticising the Supreme Court's orders. The case remains controversial — critics argue it chilled legitimate criticism of judicial conduct.
“Contempt law is not about protecting courts from criticism. Judges can defend themselves by their judgments. Contempt protects the judicial process — ensuring that courts can function and their orders obeyed.”
This Term in Indian Statutes
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 1971
"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."
Civil contempt: deliberate disobedience of court orders
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 1971
"Criminal contempt means the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
Criminal contempt: scandalising courts, sub judice interference, obstruction of justice
