Civil and Criminal Contempt Petition


The term Contempt of Court can be effectively perceived as when we are impolite or defiant towards the official courtroom which implies that we wilfully neglect to comply with the court norms and rules. Consequently, the adjudicator has the privilege to force endorses like fines or send the person attempting contempt of court to prison for a specific timeframe and he/she is viewed as a legitimate culprit of Contempt of Court.

All appointed authorities in courts can give legal orders to make any official action whenever any official legal procedure is disrupted by anyone.

In India, the idea of Contempt of Court is characterized in Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which has comprehensively portrayed it as common scorn or criminal hatred.

There are two articles in the Constitution of India which discuss the Contempt of Court and these are Article 129 and Article 142(2).

Article 129

Article 129 says that the Supreme Court will be the 'Court of Record' and it has every ability to rebuff misbehavior. Though, we are partly ought to be familiar with the significance of 'Court of Record' to comprehend the reason why anything remarked wrongly against the protocols of the courts attracts Contempt of Court.

Here, is the solution to this inquiry. The 'Court of Record' signifies a Court having its demonstrations and procedures enrolled for never-ending memory or that memory which has no closure and as proof or confirmation. The reality of these records can't be addressed and these records are treated as a more significant position. Also, anything expressed against the reality of these records contained Contempt of Court.

Article 142(2)

This article discusses Contempt of Court in a more elaborative way. It says that when any regulation is made by the Parliament on the arrangements referenced in proviso 1 of this Article, the Supreme Court has all the ability to request getting any individual's participation or creation of any reports to be sent for scrutiny.

Additionally, this doesn't imply that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right of an individual s freedom, assuming it can rebuff for Contempt of Court. We realize that it is the gatekeeper of the relative multitude of freedoms that we get from the Indian Constitution so it needs to shield these privileges and can't disregard them. 


Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states Civil Contempt as wilful defiance to the request, order, heading, any judgment or writ of the court by any individual or unyieldingly break of endeavors by an individual susceptible to a court. 

Defence in civil contempt

An individual who is accused of the Civil Contempt of a case can take the accompanying safeguards:

Absence of Knowledge of the request

An individual cannot be expected to take responsibility for Contempt of Court if he doesn't have a clue about the request given by the court or he professes to know nothing about the request. There is an obligation restricting the fruitful party by the courts that the request that is passed ought to be served to the individual by the post or some other mode of communication. It tends to be effectively argued by the accused that the confirmed duplicate of the request was not officially served to him.

Insubordination or the break done

If somebody is arguing under this protection then he/she can say that the demonstration done by him was not done resolutely, it was only a simple mishap or he/she can say that it is outside of their reach. 

Dubious or Questionable Request: If the request passed by the court is unclear or equivocal or this request isn't explicit or complete in itself then an individual can get the protection of hatred if he expresses something against that request. In the case of R.N. Ramaul v. Territory of Himachal Pradesh, this protection has been taken by the respondent. For this situation, the Supreme Court has guided the company of the respondent to re-establish the advancement of the solicitor from a specific date in the help. Be that as it may, the respondent has not delivered the money-related benefit in the given time frame and an objection was documented against him for Contempt of Court. He argues for the protection of the given proof that it has not been referenced by the court to pay the financial advantage. 

Multiple understanding of orders

If the disdain of any request proclaimed by the court and the request gives more than one sensible understanding or translation and the respondent takes on one of those understandings and works as per it, then he won't be responsible for Contempt of Court.

Unimaginable request order

If the consistency of the request is unimaginable or it is not possible then it would be taken as a safeguard on account of Contempt of Court. Notwithstanding, one ought to separate the instance of inconceivability from the instance of simple troubles. Since this protection can be given exclusively on account of the inconceivability of doing a request.


As per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, Criminal Contempt is Defined as:

  1. the distribution of any matter by words, spoken or composed, or by motion, or by signs, or by apparent portrayal or; 
  2. doing of any demonstration which:


  1. Scandalize in general outrage, or brings or tends down to bring down the power of any court, or
  2. incorporates biasness, meddles or will slow down the proper method of a judicial procedure, or
  3. hinders or blocks, meddles, or will impede the organization of equity in any way.



Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 deals with the discipline for Contempt of Court. The High Court and the Supreme Court have been provided with the ability to rebuff somebody for the Contempt of Court. Section 12(1) of this act expresses that an individual who is accused of the Contempt of Court can be rebuffed with straightforward detainment and this detainment can reach out to a half year, or with a fine which might stretch out to INR 2,000 or both. 

The court cannot force a sentence for Contempt of Court in overabundance of what is recommended under the given segment of this act either regarding itself or of a court subordinate to it.


The amended act that is known as The Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that scorn of the court can't be rebuffed in specific situations or certain cases.

Condition (a) of Section 13 of the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Act, 2006 states that no court under this act will be rebuffed for Contempt of Court except if it is fulfilled that the contempt is of such a nature that it significantly meddles or will considerably disrupt the proper way of justice.

Condition (b) of Section 13 of this Act expresses that the court might give the safeguard on the avocation of truth assuming that it finds that the demonstration done in the public interest and the solicitation for conjuring that guard is real.