Contempt of court act 1972 pdf

Section 6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt. Section 7. Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases.

Section 8. Other defences not affected. Section 9. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt. Section Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. Punishment for contempt of court. Contempts not punishable in certain cases.

Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially. Procedure after cognizance. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches. Limitation for actions for contempt. However, it noted that there were two differences in circumstances in India and the United Kingdom, which warranted a continuation of the offence in India.

First, India continues to have a high number of criminal contempt cases, while the last offence of Scandalising the Court in the UK was in Second, the offence of Scandalising the Court continues to be punishable in UK under other laws. The Commission observed that abolishing the offence in India would leave a legislative gap. Source of contempt power: The Commission observed that the superior courts Supreme Court and High Courts derive their contempt powers from the Constitution.

The Act only outlines the procedure in relation to investigation and punishment for contempt. Therefore, deletion of the offence from the Act will not impact the inherent constitutional powers of the superior courts to punish anyone for its contempt. These powers will continue to remain, independent of the Act. Impact on subordinate courts: The Constitution allows superior courts to punish for their contempt. The Act additionally allows the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts.

The Commission argued that if the definition of contempt is narrowed, subordinate courts will suffer as there will be no remedy to address cases of their contempt.

Ambiguity: The Commission observed that amending the definition of contempt will lead to ambiguity. This is because the superior courts will continue to exercise contempt powers under the Constitution. If there is no definition for criminal contempt in the Act, superior courts may give multiple definitions and interpretations to what constitutes contempt.

The Commission suggested retaining the definition for the purpose of ensuring clarity. Adequate safeguards: The Commission noted that there are several safeguards built into the Act to protect against its misuse. For instance, the Act contains provisions which lays down cases that do not amount to contempt and cases where contempt is not punishable.