Court Rules: What is Contempt of Court?

The very roots of the Indian democratic society is based on a fundamental principle of justice, namely, the rule of law. The rule of law is guarded by the Indian judiciary. Court rules make it important for the judiciary to carry out its responsibilities and functions effectively within the context of the rule of law. After all, justice can be secured to those who seek it but it is equally important that the dignity and authority of the court is safeguarded and people obey court rules.

The judiciary has been assigned with the power of punishing those who try to disregard the authority or normal functioning of the court whether inside or outside. This is termed as ‘Contempt of Court.’ Anyone who interrupts disrespects or abuses the process of justice in the court is charged with fine and can be detained in custody. This is because contempt of court may even lead to mistrial or can compromise the course of justice.

Court Rules: Types of Contempt of Court

Court rules are strict in relation to contempt of court though there has been considerable public criticism on this issue. 

Contempt of court can be direct (if performed in front of the judge) or indirect. Contempt of court in any form is taken very seriously.

There are two types of contempt of court:

Civil Contempt of Court

This refers to an individual’s failure to obey a court order. The lawbreaker may purge it by adhering to the order. Suppose you show disrespect court rules and proceedings by speaking out rudely or irreverently during a trial proceeding. The judge may find that person in contempt of court if the latter does not sit down and be silent.

Criminal Contempt of Court

This thwarts the activities of a court of law from being carried on smoothly. When a person does not provide proof when subpoenaed, or yells at the judge or threats member/s of jury or lawyer during a trial, the said person may be accused of contempt of court.

Court Rules:  Convicted with Symbolic Imprisonment for Contempt of Court

One of the most talked about cases pertaining to Contempt of Court was in March 2002, when the Supreme Court convicted Arundhati Roy, Booker Prize Winner, as guilty for committing criminal contempt of court by scandalizing the court’s authority with “malafide intentions.” Across the world, the Supreme Court’s conviction was questioned, debated and discussed as the famous writer was sentenced to “symbolic imprisonment” for a single day along with a fine of Rs.2000.

The Supreme Court took exception to some paragraphs in Arundhati Roy’s affidavit that she wrote in response to a petition. The petition sought initiation of contempt proceedings against her as she had allegedly raised slogans against the court during a demonstration right at its gate in December 2000. The Supreme Court issued notice to her on the basis of some paragraphs in her reply.

Even on her way to Tihar Jail, Arundhati Roy made her statement clear, “I stand by what I said (in the affidavit to the court).” She also stated, “I am prepared to suffer the consequences.''

The Supreme Court Bench comprised of Justice G. B. Pattanaik and Justice Sethi, observed that fair criticism of a judge’s conduct and the institution of the Judiciary may not amount to contempt, provided it is made in good faith and in public interest.

Referring to Arundhati Roy’s conduct, the Bench observed that she has shown no remorse or repentance and tried to justify her actions in a way that frustrated court proceedings. The judges stated that she was being sentenced to something as light as symbolic imprisonment only because she is a woman who serves the cause of art and literature.