PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

DEFENITION OF CONTEMPT
Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of necessity result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due course of justice. This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt", such as a person "held in contempt", it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process. A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during litigation. Halsbury defines contempt as consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. Black Odgers enunciates that it is contempt of court to publish words which tend to bring the administration of Justice into contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which is the subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in anyway to obstruct the cause of Justice.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

INDIAN SCENARIO
For the concept of Contempt of Court, the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was passed which dealt with such a concept. Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines contempt of court as civil contempt or criminal contempt; it is generally felt that the existing law relating to contempt of courts is somewhat uncertain, undefined and unsatisfactory. Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and High Court respectively to punish people for their respective contempt. Section 10 of The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines the power of the High Court to punish contempts of its subordinate courts. Power to punish for contempt of court under Articles 129 and 215 is not subject to Article 19(1)(a). The jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches upon two important fundamental rights of the citizens, namely, the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. It was, therefore, considered advisable to have the entire law on the subject scrutinized by a special committee. In pursuance of this, a committee was set up in 19611. The committee made a comprehensive examination of the law and problems relating to contempt of court in the light of the position obtaining in our own country and various foreign countries. The recommendations, which the committee made, took note of the importance given to freedom of speech in the Constitution and of the need for safeguarding the status and dignity of courts and interests of administration of justice. The recommendations of the committee have been generally accepted by the government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the state governments, union territory administrations, the Supreme Court, the high courts and the judicial commissioners.

under the chairmanship of the late H N Sanyal, the then additional solicitor general.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

ESSENTIALS & KINDS OF CONTEMPT

The elements generally needed to establish contempt are: 1. the making of a valid court order, 2. knowledge of the order by respondent, 3. ability of the respondent to render compliance, and 4. willful disobedience of the order. Lord Hardwick gave a three-fold classification of Contempt; the first includes instances when there is Scandalizing of the court it self; secondly, abusing parties who are concerned in the cause, in the presence of court & lastly Prejudicing the public before the cause is heard. Classification of Contempt of Court under Indian Laws:1. Civil Contempt - Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, defines civil contempt as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 2. Criminal Contempt - . Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, criminal contempt has been defined as the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

RELATED CASE LAW: Sukumar Mukopadhyay vs. T.D.Karamchandani2

1.FACTS:Mr. T.D. Karamchandani was the Superintendent of Customs at the material time. He moved a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging initiation of the departmental proceedings against him on 6th August, 1984. This Court directed the Excise and Customs Department to give inspection/supply copies of the documents demanded by the respondent. The copy of the order of the High Court however, was not personally served on the appellant Sukumar Mukhopadhyay (the Commissioner). Mr. Karamchandani was verbally requested to take inspection but he did not do so on account of non-availability of particular document. During that period the appellant was not in town. He filed an affidavit in this regard. No grievance was made by the respondent with regards to the non-availability of the concerned documents. Later a notice was served on the appellant stating that he had refused to comply with the courts order as he had not given the respondent the right to make an inspection of the documents. The learned Judge held Sukumar Mukhopadhyay guilty of deliberately and having intentionally committed breach of the Court's order. This was despite of the fact that the copies of the documents were given to the respondent (deceased). This however, was not done during the stipulated period. The learned Judge found that disobedience as willful. The court found the appellant guilty of contempt for not complying with the order passed. The appellant was subsequently convicted.

3. JUDGEMENTThe court acquitted the appellant & reversed the judgment given by the previous court.

1995 CriLJ 1610

4

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

3. REASONS GIVEN BY THE COURT Court said that the demand was for an inspection. The inspection in the eyes of the court was indicative of the fact that non-supply of copies of documents was made a subterfuge or a pretext in support of the contempt application by the deceased. The principal and substantial demand was inspection and that was admittedly allowed within time. Consequently, non-supply of copies of documents could not be a ground for holding the appellant to have deliberately disobeyed the order. Further it was laid down by the court that no Court including the Court of Contempt is entitled to take frivolities and trivialities into account while finding fault with the conduct of the person against whom Contempt proceeding is taken. Law is very much settled & that is, trivialities are to be ignored. Courts do not take notice of triviality and in the instant case as copies had been supplied within few days before the expiry of the period allowed, the Court should not have held the appellant guilty of having committed contempt. Trivial means trifling, inconsiderable. No one should, generally, be as in this could be convicted for trifling and trivial matters. The court while concluding the case came to the view that the power to punish for contempt has been vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for that of the public, whose interest it is that decency and decorum should be preserved in Courts of Justice. These powers are given to the Judges to keep the course of justice free; powers of great importance to society, for by the exercise of them law and order prevail; those who are interested in wrong are shown that the law is irresistible. It is this obstruction which is called in law contempt, and it has nothing to do with the personal feelings of the. Judge and no Judge would allow his personal feelings to have any weight in the matter. According to my experience, the personal feelings of the Judges have never had the slightest influence in the exercise of those powers entrusted to them for the purpose of supporting the dignity of their important office.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

CASES REFERRED
1. Tarafatullah v. S. N. Maitra3- When an injunction is granted against a corporation, which afterwards does or permits an act in breach of the injunction, there is a willful disobedience of the order and it will be no answer for the corporation to say that the act was done or the omission allowed to occur unintentionally, or through carelessness, or through dereliction of duty on the part of servants of the corporation. The same principle, would apply in the case of a Government, or a State, but before an individual officer of the Government can be held to be liable, it must be established that he was the person in charge of the subject-matter to which the injunction or order, alleged to have been disobeyed, related and unless that is established, no case against an individual officer can succeed. 2. . Naba Kumar Saha v. S. Banerjee4 - Contempt of court is either (1) Criminal contempt consisting of words or acts obstructing, or tending to obstruct, the administration of justice, or (2) contempt in procedure, consisting of disobedience to the judgments, orders, or the process of the Court, and involving a private injury. But disobedience, if it is to be punishable as contempt, must be willful. Disobedience cannot be held to be willful until the order is served. Hence the judgment or order must be shown to have been served on the party personally, except in the following cases (1) prohibitive orders, the drawing up of which is not completed; (2) orders embodying an undertaking to do an act by a named day; (3) orders to answer interrogatories or discovery or inspection of documents; (4) where an order for substituted service has been made; (5) where the respondent has evaded service of the order 3. Keshav Gaman v. Bai Rukhaiyabibi and Anr5- Where an order of which breach is complained of is ambiguous and is capable of two meanings, being not precise, no proceedings for contempt can be made on the alleged violation of that order.

3 4

AIR 1952 Calcutta 919 AIR 1953 Cal 96 5 AIR 1958 Bombay 474.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

It would be fair to say that the appellant had complied with the order of the High Court by granting inspection of the records within time stipulated by the order dated 6th August, 1984. He did not commit any contempt. The copies had been subsequently supplied to the respondent & the finding of the learned judge that the appellant deliberately committed contempt by not giving the same to the respondent is unsustainable. The law has armed the High Court with the power and imposed on it the duty of preventing any misconduct and by summary proceedings. Any attempt to interfere with the administration of justice shall be punished. However, the power to punish for contempt has been vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for that of the public, whose interest it is that decency and decorum should be preserved in Courts of Justice. Courts are not to take notice of triviality and in the instant case as copies had been supplied within few days before the expiry of the period allowed, the Court was wrong in holding the appellant guilty of having committed contempt. Trivial means trifling, inconsiderable. No one should, generally, be as in this could be convicted for trifling and trivial matters. The Court's orders had substantially and literally complied with. The learned Judge could not have found the appellant guilty of disobedience. The order passed was clearly outside the precinct of contempt jurisdiction. These powers are given to the Judges to keep the course of justice free; these are powers of great importance to society, for by the exercise of them law and order prevail; those who are interested in wrong are shown that the law is irresistible. It is this obstruction which is called in law contempt, and it has nothing to do with the personal feelings of the. Judge and no Judge would allow his personal feelings to have any weight in the matter. While exercising the powers conferred by the contempt of Courts Act, the Court should not be at cross purposes with the condemner and punish him although there was no deliberate disobedience. Attempt of the court should be to find out whether there was deliberate disobedience or intervention.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROJECT

S.MUKOPADHYAY vs. T.D.KARAMCHANDANI

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Study material compiled by Mr. P.K.Shukla 2. Internet sources A. www.manupatra.com. B. www.wikipedia.com. C. www.legalserviceindia.com. D. www.leexisnexis.com RELEVANT PROVISIONS
*.Section

10 6- Power of High Court to punish contempts 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 contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts 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 Indian Penal Code. *

Section 19 - High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for

contempt(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court ; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court : Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

Contempt of Courts Act 1971.