hackTheBox/cv · Datasets at Hugging Face

Text stringlengths 1 112
however, confined to cases where the offences are coincident or practically so.85.
The Supreme Court issued specific guidelines regarding the interpretation of general law
and special law. See the Box below for these Guidelines.
Supreme Court Guidelines on Interpretation of General law and Special law
(i) When a provision of law regulates a particular subject and a subsequent law
contains a provision regulating the same subject, there is no presumption that
the later law repeals the earlier law. The rule-making authority while making the
later rule is deemed to know the existing law on the subject. If the subsequent
law does not repeal the earlier rule, there can be no presumption of an intention
to repeal the earlier rule;
(ii) When two provisions of law — one being a general law and the other being
special law govern a matter, the court should endeavour to apply a harmonious
construction to the said provisions. But where the intention of the rule-making
authority is made clear either expressly or impliedly, as to which law should
prevail, the same shall be given effect.
(iii) If the repugnancy or inconsistency subsists in spite of an effort to read them
harmoniously, the prior special law is not presumed to be repealed by the later
general law. The prior special law will continue to apply and prevail in spite of
the subsequent general law. But where a clear intention to make a rule of
universal application by superseding the earlier special law is evident from the
later general law, then the later general law, will prevail over the prior special law.
(iv) Where a later special law is repugnant to or inconsistent with an earlier general
law, the later special law will prevail over the earlier general law.
[Maya Mathew v State of Kerala86. and P Raghava Kurup v V Ananthakumari87..]
[s 5.1] Contempt of Court
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971) makes it clear that, Contempt of Court
means 'Civil contempt' or 'Criminal contempt'.88. '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.89. "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.90. The provisions of this
Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law
relating to contempt of Courts.91. Contempt proceeding is sui generis (of its own kind
or class or unique). It has peculiar features which are not found in criminal
proceedings. The respondent does not stand in the position of a person accused of an
offence. Initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent who is already
accused in a criminal proceedings, does not amount to double jeopardy.92. Mens rea is
not necessary for committing contempt of Court. The main ingredient of the offence of
contempt of Court is the result of one's contumacious act of offending the prestige and
dignity of the judiciary so as to lower it in the estimation of the general public. Whether
the contemnor intended it or not is of no consequence.93.
[s 5.2] Contempt of Supreme Court and High Courts
Articles 129 and 215 preserve all the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court,
respectively, as a Court of Record which includes the power to punish the contempt of
itself. There are no curbs on the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of
itself except those contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.94. For the judiciary
to carry out its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly
entrusted the task, constitutional Courts have been given the power to punish for
contempt, but greater the power; higher the responsibility.95.
[s 5.3] 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 IPC, 1860 [section 10 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971]. The procedure
prescribed either under the Cr PC, 1973 or under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not
attracted to the proceedings initiated under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The High Court can deal with such matters summarily and adopt its own procedure.
The only caution that has to be observed by the Court in exercising this inherent power
of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemnors
are made aware of the charges levelled against them and given a fair and reasonable
opportunity.96.
[s 5.4] Section 228 IPC vis-a-vis Contempt of Courts Act
What is made publishable under section 228 IPC, 186097. is the offence of intentional
insult to a Judge or interruption of Court proceedings but not as a contempt of Court.
The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person
which would either scandalise the Court or tend to interfere with the administration of
justice. It would also include any act which lowers the authority of the Court or
prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings. It is not limited
to the offering of intentional insult to the Judge or interruption of the judicial
proceedings.98.
1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND
1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 .
2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).
77. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for section 5.
78. Ramachandrappa, (1883) 6 Mad 249; Motilal Shah, (1930) 32 Bom LR 1502 : 55 Bom 89.
79. UOI v Anand Singh Bisht, AIR 1997 SC 361 [LNIND 1996 SC 1341] : (1996) 10 SCC 153
[LNIND 1996 SC 1341] : 1996 Cr LJ 4435 : (1996) 1 SCC (Cr) 1198.
80. Section 41 IPC, 1860.
81. Section 42 IPC, 1860.
82. Bhalchandra Ranadive, (1929) 31 Bom LR 1151 , 1178 : 54 Bom 35.
83. Hussun Ali, (1873) 5 NWP 49.
84. Kuloda Prosad Majumdar, (1906) 11 Cal WN 100; Bhogilal, (1931) 33 Bom LR 648 .
85. Joti Prasad Gupta, (1931) 53 All 642 , 649; Suchit Raut v State, (1929) 9 Pat 126.
86. Maya Mathew v State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 498 [LNIND 2010 SC 190] : (2010) 3 SCR 16
[LNIND 2010 SC 190] : AIR 2010 SC 1932 [LNIND 2010 SC 190] : 2010 (2) Scale 833 [LNIND
2010 SC 190] .
87. P Raghava Kurup v V Ananthakumari, (2007) 9 SCC 179 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] : 2007 (2) SCR
1058 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] : (2007) 3 Scale 431 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] .
88. Section 2(a).
89. Section 2(b).
90. Section 2(c).
91. Section 22.
92. Delhi Judicial Service, Association, Tis Hazari Court v State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176
[LNIND 1991 SC 446] : 1991 (4) SCC 406 [LNIND 1991 SC 446] .

however, confined to cases where the offences are coincident or practically so.85.

The Supreme Court issued specific guidelines regarding the interpretation of general law

and special law. See the Box below for these Guidelines.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Interpretation of General law and Special law

(i) When a provision of law regulates a particular subject and a subsequent law

contains a provision regulating the same subject, there is no presumption that

the later law repeals the earlier law. The rule-making authority while making the

later rule is deemed to know the existing law on the subject. If the subsequent

law does not repeal the earlier rule, there can be no presumption of an intention

to repeal the earlier rule;

(ii) When two provisions of law — one being a general law and the other being

special law govern a matter, the court should endeavour to apply a harmonious

construction to the said provisions. But where the intention of the rule-making

authority is made clear either expressly or impliedly, as to which law should

prevail, the same shall be given effect.

(iii) If the repugnancy or inconsistency subsists in spite of an effort to read them

harmoniously, the prior special law is not presumed to be repealed by the later

general law. The prior special law will continue to apply and prevail in spite of

the subsequent general law. But where a clear intention to make a rule of

universal application by superseding the earlier special law is evident from the

later general law, then the later general law, will prevail over the prior special law.

(iv) Where a later special law is repugnant to or inconsistent with an earlier general

law, the later special law will prevail over the earlier general law.

[Maya Mathew v State of Kerala86. and P Raghava Kurup v V Ananthakumari87..]

[s 5.1] Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971) makes it clear that, Contempt of Court

means 'Civil contempt' or 'Criminal contempt'.88. '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.89. "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.90. The provisions of this

Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law

relating to contempt of Courts.91. Contempt proceeding is sui generis (of its own kind

or class or unique). It has peculiar features which are not found in criminal

proceedings. The respondent does not stand in the position of a person accused of an

offence. Initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent who is already

accused in a criminal proceedings, does not amount to double jeopardy.92. Mens rea is

not necessary for committing contempt of Court. The main ingredient of the offence of

contempt of Court is the result of one's contumacious act of offending the prestige and

dignity of the judiciary so as to lower it in the estimation of the general public. Whether

the contemnor intended it or not is of no consequence.93.

[s 5.2] Contempt of Supreme Court and High Courts

Articles 129 and 215 preserve all the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court,

respectively, as a Court of Record which includes the power to punish the contempt of

itself. There are no curbs on the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of

itself except those contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.94. For the judiciary

to carry out its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly

entrusted the task, constitutional Courts have been given the power to punish for

contempt, but greater the power; higher the responsibility.95.

[s 5.3] 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 IPC, 1860 [section 10 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971]. The procedure

prescribed either under the Cr PC, 1973 or under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not

attracted to the proceedings initiated under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The High Court can deal with such matters summarily and adopt its own procedure.

The only caution that has to be observed by the Court in exercising this inherent power

of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemnors

are made aware of the charges levelled against them and given a fair and reasonable

opportunity.96.

[s 5.4] Section 228 IPC vis-a-vis Contempt of Courts Act

What is made publishable under section 228 IPC, 186097. is the offence of intentional

insult to a Judge or interruption of Court proceedings but not as a contempt of Court.

The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person

which would either scandalise the Court or tend to interfere with the administration of

justice. It would also include any act which lowers the authority of the Court or

prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings. It is not limited

to the offering of intentional insult to the Judge or interruption of the judicial

proceedings.98.

1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND

1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 .

2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).

77. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for section 5.

78. Ramachandrappa, (1883) 6 Mad 249; Motilal Shah, (1930) 32 Bom LR 1502 : 55 Bom 89.

79. UOI v Anand Singh Bisht, AIR 1997 SC 361 [LNIND 1996 SC 1341] : (1996) 10 SCC 153

[LNIND 1996 SC 1341] : 1996 Cr LJ 4435 : (1996) 1 SCC (Cr) 1198.

80. Section 41 IPC, 1860.

81. Section 42 IPC, 1860.

82. Bhalchandra Ranadive, (1929) 31 Bom LR 1151 , 1178 : 54 Bom 35.

83. Hussun Ali, (1873) 5 NWP 49.

84. Kuloda Prosad Majumdar, (1906) 11 Cal WN 100; Bhogilal, (1931) 33 Bom LR 648 .

85. Joti Prasad Gupta, (1931) 53 All 642 , 649; Suchit Raut v State, (1929) 9 Pat 126.

86. Maya Mathew v State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 498 [LNIND 2010 SC 190] : (2010) 3 SCR 16

[LNIND 2010 SC 190] : AIR 2010 SC 1932 [LNIND 2010 SC 190] : 2010 (2) Scale 833 [LNIND

2010 SC 190] .

87. P Raghava Kurup v V Ananthakumari, (2007) 9 SCC 179 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] : 2007 (2) SCR

1058 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] : (2007) 3 Scale 431 [LNIND 2007 SC 215] .

88. Section 2(a).

89. Section 2(b).

90. Section 2(c).

91. Section 22.

92. Delhi Judicial Service, Association, Tis Hazari Court v State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 2176

[LNIND 1991 SC 446] : 1991 (4) SCC 406 [LNIND 1991 SC 446] .