Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court.

The constitutional validity of contempt of court is a challenging question to answer.
Contempt of court is a serious legal offence in India. It refers to any action or behaviour
that challenges, disobeys, or interferes with the authority or dignity of a court. The law
of contempt is designed to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the judicial system and
to ensure that the court’s orders and judgments are respected and followed.
What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of court is broadly defined as any act or conduct that tends to lower the
authority of the court, scandalize or abuse its processes, or interfere with the
administration of justice. In other words, any behaviour that obstructs or undermines
the court’s authority or hampers the smooth functioning of the judicial system can be
considered contemptuous.
Types of Contempt of Court

In India, contempt of court can be classified into two types: civil contempt and criminal
contempt.
Civil contempt refers to the disobedience of any court order or breach of an undertaking
given to the court. For instance, if a person fails to comply with a court’s order to pay a
debt or to produce documents, it can be considered as civil contempt.
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is more serious and involves any action that
scandalizes the court or interferes with the administration of justice. Examples of
criminal contempt include insulting a judge, interfering with court proceedings, or
obstructing the course of justice in any way.
Punishments for Contempt of Court

The punishment for contempt of court varies depending on the nature and severity of
the offence. In civil contempt cases, the offender may be fined or imprisoned until they
comply with the court’s order. In criminal contempt cases, the punishment can range
from a simple reprimand or a fine to imprisonment for up to six months or even more in
some cases. In extreme cases, the court can also impose a sentence of up to two years
along with a fine.
Relevant Laws
The law of contempt of court is governed by two acts in India: The Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and The Constitution of India. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the
various forms of contempt and the punishments for the same. It also lays down the
procedures for initiating and conducting contempt proceedings. The Constitution of
India also provides for the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish
contempt of court.
However, the question of the constitutional validity of contempt of court has always
been a matter of debate.
Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court

The Indian Constitution gives exclusive power to the Parliament to make laws regarding
matters mentioned in List I and the power to make laws with respect to subjects in List
III is shared by both Parliament and State legislatures. In cases of conflict, the law made
by Parliament prevails. However, Article 254(2) provides an exception to this rule,
stating that a law made by the State legislature may prevail if it has received the
President’s assent and contains provisions not repugnant to existing laws made by
Parliament.
Contempt of court falls under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III of the
Constitution’s seventh schedule, which grants the legislature the competence to
legislate on the subject. However, the Supreme Court and High Courts must retain the
power to punish for contempt, and this power cannot be transferred to any other court.
Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution emphasize the need for effective powers in the
Supreme Court and High Courts to deal with contempt cases. The Parliament’s power to
legislate in this regard must not impede the constitutional provisions’ purpose.
In the case of Noordeen Mohammed v. A.K. Gopalan, the constitutional validity of
contempt of court was challenged. It was held that the Contempt of Courts Act was
valid as it did not contravene the existing law of contempt when enacted. Several cases
have raised concerns over whether the Act satisfies the twin test given in Article 14,
which requires that the law be just, fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful, or evasive.
Additionally, the classification must satisfy the test, and there must be a relation (nexus)
between the classification and the objective.
The existing law relating to contempt of court is considered reasonable and therefore
does not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
by Article 19(1) (2) of the Constitution. According to Clause 10 of Article 366, existing
law includes any law, ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, or regulation passed or made
before the Constitution’s commencement.
Conclusion
The Contempt of Court Act’s continuity is ensured by Article 255 of the Constitution,
while Section 10 of the Act grants every High Court the power to exercise jurisdiction,
powers, and authority in contempt cases. Thus, it can be concluded that the Contempt
of Court Act is constitutional and valid.

Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The constitutional validity of contempt of court is a challenging question to answer.

What is Contempt of Court?

Types of Contempt of Court

Punishments for Contempt of Court

Constitutional Validity of Contempt of Court

You might also like