INTRODUCTION MEANING OF CONTEMPT Contempt is an act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body. In legal terminology, contempt refers to any willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; action that interferes with a judge's ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court.1 There are essentially two types of contempt: a) Contempt in facie disrespect to the decorum of the court (being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge) b) Contempt ex facie willful failure to obey an order of the court. Failure to make a courtordered payment, such as alimony, may result in a finding of contempt. The court's power to punish for contempt includes fines and/or jail time. Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive. "Justice is not a cloistered virtue, She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even if outspoken, comments of ordinary men." -Helmore, Justive Bowen In Austman and Oddson v Bjarnason, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal adopted these words: "A contempt is a disobedience to the Court, an opposing or despising the authority, justice, or dignity
thereof.
"It commonly consists in a party's doing otherwise than he is enjoined to do, or not doing what he is commanded or required by the process, order or decree of the Court. "There were three kinds of contempt: (1) Scandalizing the Court itself; (2) Abusing parties who are concerned in causes in the Court; (3) Prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.... 1 Miller C.J., Contempt of Court, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 34. 1
CONCEPT OF CONTEMPT OF COURT Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of necessity result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due course of justice. This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation. Halsbury defines contempt as consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. Black Odgers enunciates that it is contempt of court to publish words which tend to bring the administration of Justice into contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which is the subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in anyway to obstruct the cause of Justice. In case of India, under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt of court as civil contempt or criminal contempt; it is generally felt that the existing law relating to contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizens, namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special committee. In pursuance of this, a committee was set up in 1961 under the chairmanship of the late H.N.Sanyal, the then additional solicitor general. The committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country and various foreign countries. The recommendations, which the committee made, took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice.The recommendations of the committee have been generally accepted by the government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the state governments, union territory administrations, the Supreme Court, the high courts and the judicial commissioners. A case of contempt is C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta2 the respondent published and circulated a booklet in public purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah while acting in his 2 (1971 1 SCC 626), 2
judicial capacity. Mr, C.K. Daphtary, along with others, filed a petition alleging that the booklet has scandalised the judges who participated in the decision and brought into contempt the authority of the highest court of the land and thus weakened the confidence of the people in it. The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court.
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT IN INDIA The origin of the law of contempt of court in India can be traced from the English law. This law in India is nothing but the off spring of the British administration of justice in India. Creation of different Courts of Record in India necessarily meant the introduction of English Law of Contempt in some measure.3 Establishment of the Court of Mayor and Corporation of Madras under the East India Company‘s Charter of 16874 was the earliest Court of Record created in India. Admiralty Court established under the Royal Charter of 1683 had the right to hear appeals and hence Admiralty Court was also considered a Court of Record. Later Mayor‘s Court was created by the Charter of 1727 5, which was reconstituted by the Charter of 1753. These courts had power to punish for contempt. In pursuance of the Regulating Act 1773, the Mayor‘s Court at Calcutta was succeeded by the Supreme Court established under a Charter granted in 1774. The Mayor‘s Court at Bombay and Madras were superseded by the Recorder‘s Court at Madras. It was abolished by the Government of India Act, 1800 and the Supreme Court was established in the place of Recorder‘s Court at Bombay by a Charter granted under the Statute of 1823. The Recorder‘s Court and Supreme 3 VIII CAD 382: See also Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 4 (1963) 4 Charter granted by the Governor and Company of Merchants Trading into the East India, to the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Madras. 5 II Vestiges of Old Madras 1640-1800, 241,242(Charter of 1727, 249). 3
Court had the same powers for punishing for contempt as the superior courts of England .The Supreme Courts were in turn succeeded by the High Courts under the High Courts Act of 1861. The High Court of Calcutta was a court of record in all its jurisdictions and therefore possessed power to commit for contempt6. In 1886, the High Court of Allahabad was established under the High Courts Act, 1861 and was constituted as a Court of Record. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered this jurisdiction of the High Court in 1879 in Martin v. Lawrence7. Mr. Justice White observed: ―The jurisdiction of the court, under which this process of contempt issued is a jurisdiction that it has inherited from the old Supreme Court and was conferred upon that court by the Charters of the authority of the then court of King‘s Bench and the High Court of Chancery in Great Britain, and this jurisdiction has not been removed or affected by the Civil Procedure Code. The inherent powers of the High Courts to punish for contempt were later affirmed by Lahore 8 and Patna High Court9. Privy Council also accepted the same view in Ambard v. Attorney General, Trinidad and Tabago.10 These decisions show that the power to punish summarily for contempt is not created by statute but inherent in every court of record. Prior to the passing of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926 there was a conflict of opinion among the different High Court as to their power to commit for contempt of subordinate court. Madras 11 and Bombay12 High Court expressed the view that the High Courts could have jurisdiction to deal with contempt of the Mofussil Courts. But the Calcutta 13 High Court expressed the view that the High Court in India did not possess identical power in matters of contempt of their 6 Re Abdool and Mehtaf (1867) 8 W.R. (Cr.) 32. 7 I.L.R. 4 Cal. 444 (1879). 8 In the Matter of Muslim Outlook, AIR 1927 Lah. 610. 9 Emperor v. Murali Manohar Prasad, AIR 1929 Pat 72. 10 AIR 1936 P.C. 141 11In the Matter of K.Venkta Rao, 121, C. 239 (1921) 12 Re Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, AIR 1920 Bom. 175. 4
subordinate courts as possessed by the Court of King‘s Bench in England. In 1926, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with contempt of subordinate court under its inherent powers as a court of record. For making the concept of contempt more specific and for providing punishment for contempt of subordinate courts, the first Indian statute on the law of contempt i.e., the Contempt of Courts Act was passed in 1926. It was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts. When the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 (XII of 1926) was in existence in British India, various Indian States also had their corresponding enactment. These States were Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Travancore-Cochin and Saurashtra. Section 2 of the Act, 1926, empowered the High Courts of judicature to exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority to punish contempt of subordinate court. The Act was amended in 1937 to make it clear that the limits of punishment provided in the Act related not only to contempt of subordinate court but also to all cases. Articles 12914 and 21515 of the Constitution of India made the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively as Court of Record. Article 225, permits the High Courts to continue the jurisdiction and powers which they possessed immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Though the High Court as a Court of Record had the power to punish contempt of itself, doubt arose as to the power of the Court of Record to punish contempt of subordinate courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 did not contain any provision with regard to contempt of courts subordinate to Chief Courts and Judicial Commissioner‘s Court and also extra territorial jurisdiction of High Courts in matters of contempt. So, the State enactments of the Indian States and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 were replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952). Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 conferred the power on the High Courts
13 Legal Remembrancer v. Motilal Ghose, 1913, ILR Cal. 173 14 Article 129: 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. 15 Article 215: Every Hugh 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. 5
including that of the Judicial Commissioner‘s Court to punish contempt of subordinate court. Section 4 of the Act limited the punishment to be awarded in case of contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act 1952 though sound so far as it goes touches only the fringes of the subject. While its existing provisions should be continued there is need for widening considerably the scope of the Act.16 The unsatisfactory nature of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 necessitated the government to constitute a Committee to study the matter for the proper functioning of the law of contempt. An attempt was made in April, 1960 to introduce in the Lok Sabha a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to Contempt of Courts. On an examination of the Bill, Government appears to have felt that the law relating to contempt of courts in uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory and that in the light of the Constitutional changes which have taken place in the country, it would be advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a Special Committee set up for the purpose In pursuance of that decision, a Committee was set up on July 29, 1961 under the Chairmanship of the late H N Sanyal, the then Additional Solicitor General. The Committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own Country and various foreign Countries. The recommendations, which the Committee made, took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice. The Sanyal Committee submitted its report on February 28, 1963 to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by the government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. The Joint Select Committee of Parliament on Contempt of Courts examined the issue in detail and the Committee prepared a new Bill, the Contempt of courts Bill, 1968. The Bill seeks to give effect to the accepted recommendations of the Sanyal Committee. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. 16 Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, 9 (1963). 6
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 In a very practical move and in an effort to sanctify the ideal of justice, The Contempt of Courts Act, 197117, was enacted to identify and punish those very persons who, in any way, put an obstacle in the path of the judiciary to deliver justice to the people. One of the basic principles of a sound judiciary is that everyone is entitled to a free and fair trial without any prejudice whatsoever. Therefore, any action, either direct or indirect, which is detrimental to the judicial ideal of justice is sought to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
LAW POINT For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which dealt with such a concept. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt. Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to punish contempt of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a). Contempt of Court position under Indian Constitution are as following Art. 129 :Supreme Court to be a court of record.—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. Art.215: High Courts to be courts of record.—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. Art.144:Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.—All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. Art.141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.— The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Art.142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.— (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter 17 It came into force w.e.f. December 24, 1971 (70 of 1971). 7
pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. Art.261. (1) Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Salient Features
Innocent publication and distribution of matter - not contempt (Sec.3) Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding - not contempt (Sec 4) Fair criticism of judicial act - not contempt(Sec.5) Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt- in respect
of any statement made by him in good faith (Sec.6) Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera - not contempt except in certain cases (Sec 7 ) Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt (Sec 9.)- Due regard to Constitutional Provisions Power of High Court to punish contempt 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 contempt 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) [Sec.10]
OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT The people of India have a lot of faith in the judiciary which is primarily entrusted with the duty of administering justice. The primary purpose of giving courts contempt jurisdiction is then to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts and their image in the minds of the public. If such confidence and faith were allowed to be shaken then this would have serious repercussions on 8
the justice-delivery system of our country. The law of contempt provides the necessary tool to the courts to check unwarranted attacks or efforts at undermining the Rule of Law.
ESSENTIALS The elements generally needed to establish contempt are: 1. 2. 3. 4.
the making of a valid court order, knowledge of the order by respondent, ability of the respondent to render compliance, and Willful disobedience of the order.
TYPES According to Lord Hardwick, there is a three-fold classification of Contempt: 1. Scandalizing the court itself. 2. Abusing parties who are concerned in the cause, in the presence of court. 3. Prejudicing the public before the cause is heard. Under Indian law, “contempt of court” has been divided into two categories: I. II.
Civil contempt Criminal contempt
Civil contempt means - “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a Court, or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court” (section 2.b). A civil contempt is a failure to obey the court’s order issued for the benefit of the opposing party. 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 act whatsoever, which : I. II.
scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
III.
proceeding; or Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other matter (section 2.c).
9
A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court. There is not much of a problem with regard to civil contempt, inasmuch as it is essentially a willful disobedience of the order of a court. However, in the case of criminal contempt, there has always been uncertainty with regard to “scandalising” the court. Very often the courts have not been able to distinguish between the scandalising of a judge, and the scandalising of the court. Broadly, these are the two categories of contempt. It has always been held that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have inherent powers to punish anyone for contempt, for the purpose of safeguarding the dignity of the court (articles 129 & 215 of the Constitution of India). Under Indian law, the following are not contempt: Innocent publication and distribution of any matter by words, spoken or written, or by signs or visible representations, which may interfere, or tend to interfere with the administration of justice (section 3); Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings (section 4); Fair criticism of a judicial act or any proceedings (section 5); and, A complaint against the presiding officers of subordinate courts, made in good faith (section 6).
PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTICE In all cases of contempt, the principles of natural justice have to be observed before any one is held guilty. First, there should be a notice to show cause to be served on the person charged with contempt. Secondly, the notice must contain the affidavits and any other material relied on in support of the action initiated. Thirdly, the person charged with contempt has a right to file an affidavit in support of his defense, and also to produce such evidence as may be necessary. Fourthly, the court will then pass an order, after hearing both sides (section 17). Under the rules framed under the Act, such a person has a right to be defended by an advocate. In the case of subordinate courts, the High Court has power to punish for contempt. 10
There is a right of appeal from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. If the order is of a single judge, the appeal is to a bench of not less than two judges. If the order is that of a bench, the appeal is to the Supreme Court (section 19). In the case of criminal contempt, there are certain additional requirements. The cognizance of criminal contempt can only be taken on the motion made by the Advocate-General or by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General (section 15). If the court is satisfied it shall frame a charge, and thereafter the case proceeds like a criminal trial.
THIRD PARTY A third party to the proceeding may be guilty of contempt of court if they have a part to play in the offence. In LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagles Homes Pty Ltd ([1999] FCA 1213) Lindgren J stated: "It is not necessary to show that a person who has aided and abetted a contempt of court was served with the order breached. It is necessary to show only that the person sought to be made liable knew of the order."
LIMITATION The Limitation period for actions of contempt has been discussed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 and is a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
PUNISHMENT Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction (Sec.11) 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 11
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. [Sec.12]
APPEALS An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contemptA. where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court ; B. where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court : [Sec. 19]
LIMITATION OF THE APPEAL An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filedA. 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. [Sec 19 (4) ]
12
CONTEMPT OF COURTS – SOME CASE STUDIES M.B. SANGHI, ADVOCATE v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA18 Unable to secure an ad-interim stay in favour of his client, the appellant, a practicing Advocate, uttered certain words imputing motives to the Sub-Judge in refusing to grant the stay.- Had the effect of scandalizing the Court and impairing confidence of public in Court--Hence guilty of contempt Apology-Tendering of--Not to serve as mere defense against rigors of law- Should reflect remorse and contrition of contemnor- Tendering 'unqualified apology' in case Court finds him guilty--Not sincere-Contemnor addicted to use of contemptuous language against Judges and tendering apology--Apology used merely a device to escape--Not to be accepted--Use of contempt jurisdiction against erring members of legal profession- Courts are slow in the hope that Bar Councils will take care to maintain ethical norms- Decline in ethical values in the profession-Arrest ofTimely action by Bar Councils- Need for -held- “It is well-settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.”
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT19 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, Gujarat--Assaulted, arrested on flimsy grounds, handcuffed, tied with rope, photographs taken and published by Police Officers--Held constituted clear case of criminal contempt--Contemnors-punishment--Quantum of punishment determined according to degree and extent of part played by each contemnor--Guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer--To be followed by State Governments as well as High Courts--Judicial Officer not to visit Police Station—Except in connection with official and judicial duties and with prior intimation to District and Sessions Judge.
18 [AIR 1991 SC 1834:1991( 3 )SCC 600] 19 [AIR 1991 SC 2176 :1991 SCC (4) 406] 13
MOHD. ASLAM OBHURE v. UNION OF INDIA &STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS20. Willful disobedience of order of Court-Babri Masjid Case-Undertaking given by Chief Minister of a State both in his personal capacity and on behalf Of his GovernmentFlagrant breach of undertaking- Personal element shown in act of disobedience of order of Courts- Reasonable steps not taken to prevent violation of order of court-Chief Minister of the State convicted of an offence: of Contempt of Courts-Sentence of imprisonment of one day with fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION21 Respondents violating directions of Court- Also filing suit in High Court in respect of same subject matter regarding which their special leave petition had been dismissed -Suo Motu notice to respondents by Court-Contemnors tendering apology-Held, respondents' actions amounted to Contempt of Court- Apology is not a weapon of defense forged to purge guilt of offences -Contemnors sentenced to simple imprisonment-However, sentence deferred subject to conditions. HELD –“Abuse of the process of court calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a contempt of court.” CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY v. STATE OF ASSAM22 Constitution of India-Arts 14, 19, 21 and 32-Rights of under-trial prisoners- Safe custody- Use of fetters-Not permissible- Handcuffs not to be forced on a prisoner -No authority with police and jail authorities to direct handcuffing of any inmate- Magistrate may grant permission to handcuff prisoner -Public Interest Litigation. Contempt of Courts Act-Handcuffing of under-trial prisoners- Directions given by this Court-Mandate to be followed by police, jail authorities and by subordinate judiciary-Binding directions issued.
20 [ AIR 1995 SC 548:1994( 6 )SCC 442] 21 [1995 SCC (3) 507] 22 [AIR 1996 SC 2193:1995(3)SCR 943:1995(3)SCC 743] 14
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court is vested with the right to punish those guilty of contempt of Court under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The power to punish contemprers is also vested with the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 also governs the punishments given by the High Court. The contempt power in a democracy is only to enable the court to function effectively, and not to protect the self-esteem of an individual judge. The foundation of judiciary is based on the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by disrupting its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. Judiciary by punishing the guilty infuses faith in the supremacy of law and omnipotence of justice. Every offender is to be punished for contumacious acts under the relevant contempt laws, but it is extremely important to make it sure by the judiciary that these provisions are not to be misused. It can be adequately inferred that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is of paramount importance in the context of sustaining the concept of justice. It aides to make the process of administering justice expeditious as well as upholds the dignity and faith the people have bestowed in the judicial system of the country. In itself, it abstains from any form of arbitrariness. It gives every organization or individual charged under the act reasonable grounds to defend it or himself, as the case may be. The restrictions, it imposes, is just and fair in them. Moreover, it recognizes the equal footing of all people in the country by bringing the judiciary and its officials within its ambit. In the Supreme Court Bar Association case the court took a very objective view and taking the help of law and construing it in the right way came to the conclusion that the power to punish for any professional misconduct rests with the Bar, whereas to punish for contempt only it has jurisdiction for itself and subordinate courts. No statute can take contempt jurisdiction away from the Supreme as well as the High Court.
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3570/10/10_chapter%202.pdf http://law.dewaninstitutes.org/contempt-court.pdf http://www.hrdiap.gov.in/88fc/Week-12/Contempt%20of%20Courts%20in%20India.pdf http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contempt+of+Court http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c118.htm http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/ContemptofCourt.aspx
16
