Source: http://peractolegal.com/the-contempt-of-courts-act-1971/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:23:24+00:00

Document:
(i) The law of contempt of Courts is for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. While dignity of the court is to be maintained at all costs, the contempt jurisdiction, which is of a special nature, should be sparingly used; Shakuntala Sahadevram Tewari v.Hemchand M.Singhania, (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom).
(ii) Proceedings of contempt are summary in nature and also are sui generis; Golcha Advertising Agency v. The State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 Bom CR 262 (Bom).
(ii) Courts seek to punish acts or conduct calculated to interference with the administration of justice; In re: P.C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821.
(iii) Comment on pending case or abuse of a party may amount to contempt when the case is tribal by a judge: Subhash Chand v.S.M. Aggarwal, 1984 Crl LJ 481 (De.).
(v) There is no special principle attached to the Press to comment, criticize or investigate the facts of any case of the prejudice of the trial of thecase; Sukhdev Singh v.Teja Singh, AIR 1954 SC 186.
(vi) No editor has a right to assume the role of investigator to try to prejudice the court against any person; The District Magistrate v.M.A. Hamid Ali gardish, AIR 1940 Oudh 137.
(vii) It is time to stem institutionalized procrastination, K.V.Venkatesh v. Taluka Executive Magistrate, AIR 1990 Kant 86.
(ix) contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalizing the court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the mind of the people against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speech or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the court of prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal, AIR 1993 SC 1348.
(x) In contempt proceedings there are essentially two parties – The court and contemporary; Shakuntala Sahadevram Tiwari v. Hemachand M. Singhania, (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom).
(xi) The law of contempt must be strictly interpreted an complied with before any person can be committed for contempt; Roshan S. Boyce v.B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd., AIR 1990 SC 1881.
(xii) Any willful disobedience to the orders of the court to do or abstain from doing any act or breach of any undertaking given to the court is prima-facie Civil Contempt; Vidya Sagar v.IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, 1991 All CJ 586 (588); See also State of Assam v.V.K.Vishnoi, 1993 (23) ATC 581 (587-588); State of Orissa V.Bijaya Mohanty, (1993) 75 CLT 820 (830).
(xiii) Non caring of the warrant issued by the Criminal Court amounts to Criminal Contempt; E.Venkaiah v. Government of Andhar Pradesh, 1992 (3) ALT 193 (199).
(i) The liberty of free expression is not to be compounded with a licence to make unfounded allegations of corruption against judiciary; M.R. Prashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah, (1984) 1 Cr LJ 433.
(ii) The abuse of the liberty of free speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt; M.R. Prashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah, (1984) 1 Cr LJ 433.
(iii) A defence of truth or justification is not available to the publisher of a newspaper in proceedings for contempt of court; Md. Vamin v. O.P. Bensal, 1982 Cr LJ 322 (Raj).
(i) The words “judicial proceeding” means day-to-day proceedings of the court. The media reports must represent a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding and not be a one-sided picture; Subhash Chand v. S.M. Aggarwal, 1984 Cr LJ 481.
(ii) Fair and accurate reporting of the judgment is essential for the healthy administration of justice; Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union (in re:), 1984 Cr LJ 1061 (Ker).
Judgments are open to criticism that must be done without casting aspersions on the judges and the courts and without adverse comments amounting to scandalising the courts; Advocate General v. Abraham George, 1976 Cr LJ 158 (161).
Immunity is provided to a citizen making a complaint to the High Court against a Presiding Officer of a subordinate court so long as the complaint is made in good faith; Court on its own motion (in re:), 1973 Cr LJ 1106 (P&H).
The phrase “courts subordinate to it” used in section 10 is wide enough to include all courts which are judicially subordinate to the High Court even though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution does not vest in the High Court; S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1981 Cr LJ 283 (286).
This section expands the ambit of the authority beyond what was till then considered to be possible but it does not confer a new jurisdiction. It merely widens the scope of our existing jurisdiction of a very special kind; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Radhey Shyam, 1983 Cr LJ 1153 (1162).
(i) Court dealing with application for contempt of court cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible; Prithavi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 4277A.
(ii) The various different modes of execution of orders and decrees, as recognised by law, cannot be resorted to by the Court in a contempt proceeding; Bonbehari Roy v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, AIR 2004 Cal 254B.
(iii) The common English phrase “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the standard of proof, be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi judicial, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt; Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman, AIR 2001 SC 1293.
(iv) The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of court, though quite wide, is yet limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is also guilty of “professional misconduct” in a summary manner; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895.
(v) Breach of an injunction, or breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil proceeding amounts to contempt; Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, AIR 1990 SC 564.
(vi) Committing the contemner to prison is always discretionary with the court; Shakuntala Sahadevram Tiwari v. Hemchand M. Singhania, (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom).
(vii) The court can, even when accepts the apology, commit an offender to prison or otherwise punish him; Rupert J. Bamabas v. N. Bharani, 1990 LW (Crl) 27 (Mad).
(i) Section 13 postulates no punishment for contemptuous conduct in certain cases and the language used therein seems to be with utmost care and caution when it records that unless the court is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice which has been equated with “due administration of justice”; Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newalia, AIR 2000 SC 833.
(ii) Technical contempt’s are to be ignored; Baradakanta Mishra v. The Registrar, Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 710.
(iii) A party (or person) can be committed for contempt only owing to any willful or deliberate or reckless disobedience of the order of the Court; Jiwani Kumari v.Satyabrata Chakraborty, AIR 1991 SC 326.
(iv) Exemplary costs may be awarded instead of imposing a fine; Naamunnissa Shaukat Ali v.Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1990) Mah LR 329 (Bom).
If the court did not take action under section 14 then the procedure of section 15 cannot be adopted later; Manisha Mukherjee v. Ashoke Chatterjee, 1985 Cr LJ 1224.
(i) The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from being wasted by frivolous contempt petitions; Bal Thackrey v. Haris Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254E.
(ii) Where an advocate who had apparently no case on the Board of Bench, shouted slogans in the open court and thereafter hurled his shoe towards the court thereby interrupting the court proceedings, his action, both by his words and deeds, in the presence of court amounts to gross criminal contempt of court; In re: Nand Lal Balwani, AIR 1999 SC 1300.
(iii) Procedure of making a reference cannot apply in a case when the Presiding Officer of a subordinate court himself is guilty of contempt of court; Berely v. Xavier, 1988 Cr LJ 90.
(iv) It is always open to the High Court to take action suo motu in respect of a subordinate court; State of Orissa v. R.N. Patra, 1976 Cr LJ 440 (Ori). See also A.R. Rao v. C.P. Rao, 1981 Cr lj 1322.
(v) Nobody has a right to compel the subordinate court to make a reference to the High Court; Jomon v. State of Kerala, (1987) IJ Reports 273 (Ker).
(i) Only a Judge of a subordinate court can be said to have committed contempt of his own court i.e. the court in which such judge is presiding; Harish Chandra v.S. Ali Ahmed, 1987 Cr LJ 320 (Pat).
(ii) A judge can foul judicial administration by misdemeanors while engaged in the exercise of the functions of a Judge; Baradakanta v. The Registrar, Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 710.
(iii) The Magistrates should be conscious of their heavy responsibilities and should not act in a manner prejudicial to the litigants; B.N. Choudhary v.S.M. Singh, 1967 Cr LJ 1141 (Pat).
(i) The period of one year has to be reckoned from the date on which a notice under this section has been issued; K.K.R. Nair v. Mohan Das, 1990 Cr LJ 1641 (AP).
(ii) An order initiating proceeding for contempt by a notice issued under section 17 is not appealable under section 19 of the Act; The Union of India v. Mario Coural Sa, AIR 1982 SC 691.
(iii) The position of a contemner is that of an accused person; M.R.
Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah, 1984 Cr LJ 337 (SC).
(iv) Personal appearance, unless dispensed with, of a contemner is mandatory; B.N. Jaisimha v. N.T. Prabhakar, (1985) 29 MLJC Cri 640.
(i) The jurisdiction rests exclusively with a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court; B.R. Karandikar v.M.Y.Joshy, (1983) 2 Bom Cr 558 (Bom).
(ii) However, it was observed that a single Judge can also deal with criminal contempt’s committed in facie curium; In re: Court on its own motion, AIR 1980 P & H 72.
(a) When thee High Court acquits the contemner, no appeal lies; Subhash Chandra v.B.R. Kakkar, (1992) 2 Punj Lr 46 (P & H).
(c) By a Division Bench of the High Court, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, As of a statutory right; Mohammad Idris v.R.J. Babuji, (1984) 2 Crimes 880 (SC).
(iii) It is not each and every order passed during the contempt proceedings that is appealable; S.P. Wahi v.Surendra Singh, 1983 Cr LJ 1426.
(iv) An Appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the order appealed against; Hans Raj v.State of Himachal Pradesh, 1985 Cr LJ 1030.
(iii) the court may issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against calling upon him to show cause why he be not punished for contempt.
In the cases contemplated by (i) or (ii) it cannot be said that any proceedings for contempt have been initiated. It is only when the court has found an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemners should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt; Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal, AIR 2000 SC 1136.
(ii) Initiation of any proceedings for contempt is barred after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed; V.M. Kanade v. Madhao Gadkari, (1990) 1 Mah LR 544 (Bom).
(iii) No intervening event or order stops the running of time specified in this section; Golcha Advertising Agency v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 Bom CR 262 (Bom).
(iv) Delay in initiating contempt proceedings cannot be condoned; T.M.A. Abdul Hamed v. S. Radhakrishnan, 1989 LW (Cri) 237.
The provisions incorporated in the Act are supplemented to already existing law of contempt; Harish Chandra Misra v.S.Ali Ahmed, AIR 1986 Pat 65.

References: sui generis
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.