Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and Rules
"The phrase 'Contempt of Court' is a generic word that describes behaviour in regard to specific procedures in a court of law that seeks to undermine that system or prevent citizens from using it to resolve their issues." Lord Diplock provided this concept in his opinion in the matter of Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.
Contempt of Court is defined as disobedience or contempt toward a court of law, which indicates that we willfully fail to obey a court order or disrespect legal authority. The court can then impose punishment such as fines or sentence the offender to prison for a certain amount of time if he is found guilty of Contempt of Court.
The idea of contempt of court is defined in India by Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which essentially defines it as civil or criminal contempt.
Article 129 of the Indian Constitution and Article 142(2) of the Indian Constitution both deal with contempt of court.
According to Article 129, the Supreme Court is a "Court of Record" with all of the authorities of such courts, including the jurisdiction to penalise for contempt of court.
The term "Court of Record" refers to a court that has its actions and procedures recorded for everlasting memory or indefinite memory, as well as evidence or proof. The accuracy of these documents cannot be questioned, and they are also recognised as authoritative. And anything said in defiance of the accuracy of these documents was considered contempt of court.
142nd Article (2)
Contempt of Court is also discussed in this article. This Article states that when the Parliament passes a legislation including the requirements listed in clause 1 of this Article, the Supreme Court has complete authority to issue an order requiring anyone's attendance, submission of any documents, or penalty for contempt.
In addition, does not mean that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right of personal liberty if it has the power to punish for Contempt of Court. We know that it is the guardian of all the rights that we get from the Indian Constitution so it has to safeguard these rights and cannot violate these rights itself.
In India, the current function pertaining to ex facie contempt of subordinate courts is insufficient and misleading. It appears that plainly, the challenges in this respect are the after product of overlap of contempt powers under the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act and contempt powers of the Supreme Court and High Court under the Indian constitution. The situation has become more difficult as a result of the Supreme Court's and High Court's differing interpretations of several parts of the Indian Penal Code dealing with interference with the administration of justice and the exclusion clause in the Contempt of Courts Act. Not only the higher court, but also the lower court, should have the authority to deal with contempt. Contempt of Court if seen from the perspective of the judges, higher judicial officials seems good but if it comes to the perspective of common people it turns towards its bad effect.
Post a Comment