JUDICIAL REVIEW on “CONTEMPT OF COURT”

Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to explicate and protect the

constitution and to declare any such order or law of the executive and legislature invalid, when it
finds them in conflict the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India is supreme; In a
Democratic form of Government People is Supreme.

Judicial Review power is the power of Supreme Court and governed by the principle;
‘Procedure Established by Law’. It has the power to void any law or any part of law which is
found to be unconstitutional. It can review the laws and rules of the legislature and executive in
cases that specifically challenged before bench or during the course of hearing a case the validity
of any law is challenged before it. Judicial Review is not automatic. State High Courts also
possesses this power but their judgments can be modified or upheld by the Supreme Court. All
Central and State laws, the orders and ordinances of the executives and constitutional
amendments can be reviewed by Supreme Court except the laws incorporated in the 9th
Schedule of the Constitution1

Supreme Court can valid or void any law or any part of law or some part of law, in which
the law enforced into operation from the date of judgment. If void part of law is so valid that
other part cannot be operated without it then whole law will be rejected, or modified.

 Sec 2a of the Contempt of the court act 1971 defines civil contempt or criminal contempt
 Sec 2b of the contempt of the court act 1971 defines CIVIL CONTEMPT, which 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;
 Sec 2c of the contempt of the court act 1971 defines CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, which
means the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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 or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.2

1
http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.htm ( 8.00 am 10-04-2017)
2
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 (8.30am 10-04-2017)

Page | 1
 It also defines as the offence of which being disobedient to or discourteous towards
a court of law and its court officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defames the court
Authority, Justice, and Showing disrespect on a court, or obstructs the ability of the court to
perform its function.

Sec 2a of the contempt of the court act 1971 defines that, there are two basic types of
contempt’s which are civil contempt, and criminal contempt. There are two basic type of civil
contempt.

TYPES OF CONTEMPT
DIRECT CONTEMPT:

It is contempt in the presence of the judge or presiding court officer of the court. 
Direct contempt is dealt with immediately. A judge finding a party in contempt will
normally give the party a brief chance to defend itself before rendering judgment. Direct
contempt of court usually results in a fine or a brief incarceration in the court’s lockup. The idea
is that a monetary penalty or some time to cool one’s heels behind bars will properly motivate
the guilty party to curb their troublesome behavior.3

INDIRECT CONTEMPT:

It is a contempt which occurs outside the immediate presence of judge or court’s presence
but is still a flaunting of the court’s authority. Though it indirectly defames the officers it is
simple a contempt, because contempt means contempt whether it is directly or indirectly it
doesn’t depend on.4

3
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DirectContempt.aspx (9.00am 10-04-2017)
4
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_court_indirect ( 9.45am 10-0-2017)

Page | 2
 EVOLUTION OF CONCEPT OF ‘CONTEMPT’:

Contempt law is a British law which is borrowed to our Indian legal system from British
law, in England it was changed but still in India it is still following the old law.

In the feudal Society the Kings were supreme and the people were Subjects where as
people cannot criticizes the master and the kings. If he/she does so he would be punished, and
judges were delegates of the king because the judicial Function is the sovereign function, and
many times kings themselves decide cases.

For example Mughal Emperor used to decide themselves many cases but later on kings
responsibility increases to see Political, Financial, Military and so on so he doesn’t have any time
to decide the cases, so he orders to look after this case functions to the people who were known
as Judges. They were treated as delegates of the king. The Judges who were the delegates of the
king will have dignity.

In a feudal society the people are subjects and kings and his delegates were supreme. But
in a democracy on the other hand this relationship is reversed. Earlier Kings were supreme and
people were Subjects whereas here in democratic society the people were Supreme, all the State
authorities were the servants of the people whether he/she is a president of India, Prime Minister
of India, Chief Justice of India, Ministers, Judges, Police Officers, IAS Officers, IPS Officers,
they are Nothing but the Servants of the people because people were the SUPREME in the
Democracy. (For the people, To the people, By the people)

Therefore since the people are the masters Judges are servants, Can master doesn’t ask
his servants why you are not doing your work properly. Earlier people cannot criticize judges
because people were servants and the judges were delegates of the king. Now, since this relation
is reversed people has the Right to criticizes the judges and take them to task because people are
the masters. So it logically follows the people has the right to criticize judges.

Page | 3
 From that time onwards till date the Word Contempt of the Court is followed in India so
that the judges should have some dignity like the Kings used to enjoy the privilege. But today,
the situation is totally different because the foundation law is changed and the basic law is
changed because in democratic India people are supreme.

According to my Opinion the “Contempt law only is that if someone doesn’t allow the
judge to function to do his work properly then he can invoke the defense of Contempt.”

For example if a person who enters the court room and creates unwanted disturbances in
order to avoid the court to run smoothly then it is a contempt.Also willful disobedience to any
judgement , decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an
undertaking given to a court is contempt.

Page | 4
 ARTICLE 19, 129, AND 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION

There are two provisions in the constitution:

That Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (2) of the constitution which gives freedom of
speech and expression and the restrictions laid on that freedom respectively. And other
provisions are article 129 for the Supreme Court and 215 for High court giving those powers of
the contempt of the court. Now the question is how these two provisions were recon sized

 One gives Freedom of speech and

 Other Blocks the freedom of speech

Now in my opinion we can recon sized the two provisions which one gives freedom of
speech and other blocks freedom of speech. Recognizing Article 19 1(a) as the principle law
because that it is the right of the citizen and citizen is the supreme of the democracy. The only
way to recon sized it is the making article 19 as the primary and Article 129 and 215 as
secondary importance because the citizen was sovereign and this is the only way we can recon
sized because we can’t treat the judges equal to the people because people are supreme.

And also we should see that judges should take Contempt action in rare cases and that
also when someone when not allowing judge to function properly and also who shows
disobedience towards his decree.

In India, this right is granted by Article 19(1) (a). However, this right of freedom to
speech and expression is not completely unrestrained. Article 19 (2) allows for reasonable
restrictions to be compulsory on all fundamental rights, as well as that of freedom to speech and
expression.

In Romesh Thappar v Union of India, JUSTICE PATANJALI HELD that 19(1) (g) is the very
Fundamental and essence of the constitution and our democracy. Practical restrictions, however,
be prominent, should be such that others’ rights should not be stuck or exaggerated by the acts of
one man, in the case of Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India. The judiciary has upheld the
restrictions that can be obligatory and the author describes them under a number of subheadings,
but the courts have also held that the government’s hindrance in this right has to also be kept in
check.
Page | 5
 CASES ON CONTEMPT OF COURT:

KARNATAKA HC ISSUES WARRANT AGAINST MALLYA IN CONTEMPT CASE:

Mallya received $40 million from British firm Diageo Plc in February last year and
transferred the money to his children in flagrant violation of various judicial orders, including
those passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court. The banks sought
that apex court directs him to bring back $40 million, which Mallya had allegedly transferred to
his children.The Karnataka High Court issued a bailable warrant against Vijay Mallya after he
failed to appear before the court in connection with a contempt of court case, for allegedly
breaching an undertaking given to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in 2013 during the
proceedings on banks’ plea for recovering dues from Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.A Division Bench,
consists of Justice Jayant M. Patel and Justice Aravind Kumar, passed the order during the
hearing of the contempt of court petition filed in 2014 by the banks accusing Mr. Mallya of
pledging huge number of shares in violation of an oral undertaking before the DRT for not to
transfer, alienate or otherwise to dealt with his assets. The Bench issued warrant, returnable and
bailable on executing a bond for ₹1 lakh, as Mr. Mallya failed to personally appear before the
court despite his counsel communicating the court’s two orders in this regard. When the counsel
representing banks pointed out that Mr. Mallya was not in India and wanted to place before the
court the procedures required to be followed to secure an accused who had left the country, the
Bench said it would go step by step while pointing out Mr. Mallya’s address was in Bengaluru as
per the court records and there were no material to show that he was not in India though it was
reported in the media that he had left India. A PTI report from New Delhi said Mr. Mallya
claimed ‘innocence’ in the alleged funds diversion related to Kingfisher Airlines, saying nothing
had come out finally against him from a court. “Till this minute, there is no final judicial
determination on what KFA owes to banks and what I may owe in my personal capacity after
trial,” Mr. Mallya tweeted. In a series of tweets, he raised concerns over the media coverage of
the recent developments and said his “innocence prevails” till he is proven guilty by any court.5

Mallya has been mocking the Indian judicial system by "willful, contumacious conduct"
and has disregard to the court proceedings and flied to London.
5
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/Karnataka-HC-issues-warrant-against-Mallya-in-contempt-
case/article17102173.ece (11.08am, 15-04-2017).

Page | 6
 VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNOR) [AIR 1995 SC 2348]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterates the position of law relating to the powers of
contempt and opined that the judiciary is not only the protector of the rule of law and third pillar
but in fact the middle pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and
functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity
and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very
cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law
and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with
extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether inside or outside the
courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by
scandalizing it.6
ALLAHABAD H C ORDER 4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT TO A LAWYER
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the allegations made by Ram Kumar Singh
were “contemptuous, wild and reckless”. The Court also barred Singh from entering both the
district court and the Allahabad High Court (including Lucknow Bench) premises for a period of
six months. Ram Kumar Singh, a practicing advocate since 1983, had sent a letter to the
Supreme Court as well as the Chief Justice of India, alleging that the current Chief Justice of the
Allahabad High Court was “pro government” and “unfit to administer in his present capacity”.7
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST MADRAS HIGH COURT CHIEF JUSTICE, SANJAY KAUL
This case revolves around the biasness in selection of civil judges on religious grounds.
The Supreme Court stayed a controversial interim order passed by Madras High Court judge
Justice C.S. Karnan, allegedly undermining the authority of High Court Chief Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul. Staying Justice Karnan’s order of April 30, 2015, passed in suo motu proceedings
relating to the appointment of officers of lower judiciary, a Bench headed by Chief Justice H.L.
Dattu ordered that the judge be restrained from either hearing or issuing any further directions in
the case. 8

6
http://www.livelaw.in/indian-judiciarys-take-on-contempt-of-courts-revisiting-the-year-2015 (12.05pm, 15-04-
2017)
7
http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/hc-sentences-lawyer-to-four-month-jail-on-criminal-contempt-
charges/ (12.15pm, 15-04-2017)
8
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Judge-threatens-Madras-HC-chief-justice-with-
contempt/articleshow/47218636.cms (12.25pm 15-04-2017)

Page | 7
 ALLAHABAD HC SENDS 11 LAWYERS TO JAIL FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

Holding 11 advocates guilty of unruly behavior inside the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Sonbhadra in 2013, the Allahabad High Court has sentenced them
to three months in jail. The HC also slapped a fine of Rs 2,000 on them, failure to pay which
would attract another two months imprisonment. A division bench of Allahabad High Court of
Justices Sudhir Agarwal and Dinesh Gupta passed the order in a criminal contempt application
against advocates Mahendra Prasad Shukla, then Secretary (DBA, Sonbhadra) and others.9

HIMACHAL PRADESH HC ISSUES CONTEMPT NOTICE TO THE “THE TRIBUNE” NEWSPAPER.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has appeared downward heavily on a newspaper,
for indulge in frequent misquoting and misreporting of the orders. A Division bench of Justices
Rajiv Sharma and Sureshwar Thakur held that newspapers should report an order of the Court as
it stands, instead of creating sensation. The bench has also directed the registry to draw contempt
proceedings against the local correspondent of the daily edition of The Tribune and to issue
notice. The court observed that this misquoting is prone to spread misinformation among the
general public that the Judges have carved out a special privilege for themselves. 10

PARAS SAKLECHA V/S SHRI JUSTICE A.M KHANWILKAR, CHIEF JUSTICE, HC OF M.P

A contempt petition filed against Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court was
dismissed by the High Court. A petitioner in Public Interest Litigation had filed the application
alleging that certain utterances made by the Chief Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, while hearing the
writ petition amounts to contempt. However the Division bench of Justices Rajendra Menon and
K.K. Trivedi, who heard the application, said that the act of the Chief Justice as alleged in the
contempt petition cannot be termed as contempt of Court. 11

9
http://indianewsbreak.com/69478/india-news/hc-restrains-6-advocates-from-entering-district-court-premises-2
(12.35pm 15-04-2017)
10
http://www.livelaw.in/newspaper-must-report-an-order-of-the-court-as-it-stands-instead-of-creating-sensation-hp-
hc-issues-contempt-notice-to-the-tribune-reporter/( 12.54pm 15-04-2017)
11
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167571437/ (4.00 pm 15-04-2017)

Page | 8
 M.V JAYARAJAN VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ANR.

In this case the apex court stated that “Judges expect, nay invite, an informed and genuine
discussion or criticism of judgments, but to incite a relatively illiterate audience against the
Judiciary is not to be ignored. What had landed Mr. Jayarajan in trouble was his use of
Malayalam words ‘shumbhanmar’ (fool, idiot, dunce) and ‘pulluvila’ (of little value) and other
usages in his remarks against the judges of the High Court during a public speech here on June
26, 2010. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Kerala CPM leader MV Jayarajan for
calling state high court judges “idiots”, but reduced the sentence from six months to four weeks.
An apex court bench held by, Justice Vikramajit Sen upheaded Jayarajan’s confidence holding
that he has no regret for his utterances against high court judges.12

KK MISHRA @ BALRAM

A Verdict which has drawn attention of almost everyone where Allahabad High Court
has convicted a lawyer for committing criminal contempt of subordinate Court and has sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Division bench of Justices Sudhir Agarwal
and Shamsher Bahadur Singh has also restrained the lawyer from entering the High Court and
District court premises for a period of three years. In the said case the lawyer, had hurled abuses
and made wild allegations of bribery and corruption against Reference Officer (Civil Judge) and
hreatened him of dire consequences when he would come out of the court after the court hours.13

SAROJ MITTAL VS STATE

Delhi High Court initiated contempt proceedings against Superintendent AIIMS and
Tihar Jail Superintendent due to non following of the High Court directions. Hearing a plea of an
ailing lady, the Court on June 8 had ordered that she “will be taken by a specially equipped
ambulance to AIIMS and be kept under observation there till her condition stabilizes.” This order
was not followed by the authorities; the Court on June 12, 2015 expressed its displeasure.
COURT ON ITS MOTION VS. SEEMA SAPRA
12
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/m-v-jayarajan-vs-high-court-of-kerala/ (5.00pm 15-04-2017)
13
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69212950/ (6.00 pm 15-04-2017)

Page | 9
 The sentence was imposed on Seema Sapra by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court
Comprising of Justice Valmiki J Mehta and Justice PS Teji in contempt proceedings originally
initiated against her by a Bench comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bhakru
after she had accused Justice Vibhu Bhakru of corruption in open court. The Court found her
guilty of committing contempt of court and sentenced her to one month imprisonment apart from
imposing a fine of Rs.2000/. The Court however stated that there can be no justification for
baseless and reckless allegations made of corruption against the Judges as corruption is a very
serious charge against the Judge and the institution of Court itself which scandalizes judiciary
and interferes or tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice if the allegation of
corruption is unsubstantiated, and in fact not even remotely established.14
DR. GN SAIBABA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has rejected bail application Dr. Gokarakonda
Naga Saibaba who was arrested for his alleged links with Maoists. Justice Arun B. Choudhari,
while dismissing the bail application also directed registration of Criminal Contempt against the
author Arundhati Roy for the article she had written in The Outlook criticising the nongranting
of bail to the Professor.
Law is no stranger to prejudice or moral anxieties. Judicial pronouncements can
sometimes cast aside constitutional values and defer to societal biases masquerading as
righteousness. The recurrence of “collective conscience” in terror cases, where the threat of
terrorism looms so large that it can overshadow the lack of evidence, is only too well known.
Even so, the December 23 order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court takes one’s
breath away. It rejected the regular bail plea moved by the lawyers of Delhi University professor,
Saibaba, cancelled his interim bail which allowed him to receive treatment till December 31, and
ordered him to surrender within 48 hours. Besides, the court issued a notice of criminal contempt
to Arundhati Roy for her article, ‘Professor, POW’, published in Outlook magazine. The order
will be remembered for its naked display of contempt for civil rights, partisanship and
renunciation of judicial independence.15

REFERENCE ORDER BY JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU OF KERALA HIGH COURT

14
http://www.livelaw.in/tag/court-on-its-motion-vs-seema-sapra/ (7.00pm 15-04-2017)
15
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-university-professor-saibaba-arrested-for-maoist-links-gets-
bail/1/634645.html (6.00am 16-04-2017)

Page | 10
 A Single Bench of Kerala High Court presided over by Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu has
doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench led by the then Chief
Justice of Kerala High Court, Dr. Manjula Chellur in the case of Jyothilal K. R. v. Mathai M.J.,
reported in 2014 (1) KLT 147. The Division Bench had held in that case that the contemnor need
not appear until a notice is given by the Division Bench. It had further directed the Single Bench
to refer matters pertaining to contempt to the Division Bench. The Judgment in Jyothilal was
criticized by senior lawyers and former Judges alike.16
The judiciary should not be totally vulnerable to all the attacks; Neither should the
judiciary be too sheltered from public criticism. An appropriate balance needs to be struck
between judicial protection and judicial accountability which the Indian Judiciary has
successfully maintained so far. Respect for the judiciary is the vital part of an affective rule of
law. But respect cannot be enforced; it can only be earned.17

UK COURT TO CONSIDER EXTRADITION REQUEST OF VIJAY MALLYA

The government's effort to bring Vijay Mallya to justice in India for defaulting on bank
loans over Rs 9,000 crores got a boost on Tuesday when the UK accepted its request to help
extradite the absconding tycoon. Acting on an extradition request sent by CBI over the IDBI
Bank BSE SCAM and a service tax case, Scotland Yard arrested Mallya and produced him in a
court which as is the routine in financial crimes, released him on conditional bail on a Rs 5.4-
crore bond and stiff terms until May 17, when a senior district judge will start the extradition
hearing. Declared a proclaimed offender by Indian courts, Mallya was arrested at the London
police station he had gone to after learning about the about the extradition warrant issued against
him. Vijay Mallya's arrest sets the stage for what is going to be a long drawn out legal battle
between the absconding tycoon and Indian agencies, the CBI as well as the Enforcement
Directorate, over the Centre's move to bring him home to face the law for not repaying public
sector banks thousands of crores he had borrowed for his now defunct Kingfisher Airlines. 18
There is a effort which is made by the Government of India in arresting Mallya in extradition but
why should a bail was granted, and the very purpose of making arrest?

16
http://highcourtofkerala.nic.in/dsn.html (8.00am 16-04-2017)
17
http://www.livelaw.in/tag/justice-dama-seshadri-naidu/ (8.00am 16-04-2017)
18
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Vijay-Mallya ( 12.04pm 19-04-2017)

Page | 11
 CONCLUSION:

The judiciary on contempt of court proceedings have never been strict, they change as per
circumstances and people involved, and the recent cases mentioned above along with Karnataka
government in Cauvery water issue, Justice Karnan`s case, and Anurag Thakur`s (BCCI) case.

Judicial process in Katju’s case reflects the extent of ' intolerance' seeping into judicial
system. The influence of executive control can be directly visualised in most of its verdicts.
Whether Arundhati Roy punished for contempt of court or the ' constitutional patriotism' of
National Anthem, the verdicts have been less than satisfactory. Similar problem is with the
court"s dealing in Katju's affair also. Judiciary is not strict. It is showing discrimination from
person to person. “All Are Equal Before The Eyes Of Law”. But the judiciary is not at all strict.

We have article 19 which tells about freedom of speech and expression but no one can
take it as advantage and disturb court to function properly because it has some exceptions. In the
same way we have another two provisions 129 for high court and 215 for Supreme Court giving
those powers of contempt of court. We have freedom of speech and definitely anybody can
express their opinion. Responsible judiciary oughtn’t to waste its precious time upon trivial
matters. If any person found contempt then the decision should be at spot and the judge has
power to give such punishments.

Why judiciary is not involving in all types of cases and this is the main reason why the
cases are not solved (pending cases). If the judiciary is strict in all types of cases whether it is
contempt or any other case, then everyone fears to judiciary. Judiciary has dignity and respect
everyone must and should give respect to the judiciary. Persons or Organization who pretend to
disobey the court Proceedings or Order a strict action should be initiated. Judiciary wants to
involve in all Organization like Sports Federation, Non Governmental organization, Private
Firms and Committees, Recruitment sections etc and almost every corner with Retired or
Working Judges/ Qualified Lawyers.

Page | 12