From pg: 31-60

Rajendra Sail v. MP High Court Bar Association the prosecution witness made statement in
public that in murder trial the judge has disposition to acquit the accused. The judge about to
retire was available for sale & that the judgment was rubbish & deserves to be thrown in dustbin.
This comment made by the witness was published in newspaper. The court held that it amounts
to gross contempt of court.

The person who gives publicly to a scandalizing attack on judge or court is as much guilty of
criminal contempt as the person who makes the attack.

Statement casting aspersions on a judge after retirement

S. Gyan Singh v. Ram Bheja Lal the contemner had made allegations about the lack of
impartiality on the part of a judge of the HC who had ceased to be a judge of the HC, when the
said allegations were made. The Punjab HC held that a statement against a judicial officer who
had ceased to be a judicial officer when the statement was made would not come within the
mischief of the contempt of Courts Act. The court held that when a person has ceased to be a
judge on retirement or otherwise, it cannot be said that the libellous statement made against him
regarding his judicial conduct or character amounts to disrespect to the court. The court also
observed that a statement though a libelous one, made against a retired judge would not amount
to Contempt of Court because that statement does not bring a judge of the court into contempt,
nor does it lower his authority as a judge of the court. For this purpose, it is not material whether
the judge has retired recently or has been on the retirement list since a long time.

Vishwanath vs E.S. Venkatramaih The interview which Shri E. S. Venkatramaih, the former
Chief Justice of India, gave to the Journalist Shri Kuldeep Nayar on the eve of his retirement has
given rise to the present petition for contempt & said: "The judiciary in India has deteriorated in
its standards because such Judges are appointed, as are willing to be "influenced" by lavish
parties and whisky bottles." He also said that that close relations of Judges be debarred from
practising in the same High Courts. He expressed himself strongly against sons, sons-in-law and
brothers of Judges appearing in the courts where the latter are on the Bench. Most relations of
Judge are practising in High Courts of Allahabad, Chandigarh, Delhi and Patna.

He further said that practically in all the 22 High Courts in the country close relations of Judges
are thriving. There are allegations that certain judgments have been influenced through them
even though they have not been directly engaged as lawyers in such cases. It is hard to disregard
the reports that every brother, son or son-in-law of a Judge, whatever his merit or lack of it as a
lawyer, can be sure of earning an income of more than Rs. 10,000/- a month."

The Bombay HC held that the words did not amount to contempt of court because the entire
interview was given with an idea to improve the judiciary. The view of HC does not appear to be
correct. The statement made by former CJI appears to be sufficient to shake the faith of the
people in the administration of justice. The intention might not have been to malign the judges
but the intention of the person making the statement is not relevant. Thus, the said statement was
sufficient for deriving a conclusion that they were likely to shake the faith of the people in
administration of justice where the maker was the former CJI.

Alleging Partiality
Vidya Sagar v. R it was held that the allegation of counsel in the court that the court was partial
& that he & his clients were thereby compelled to withdraw from the case, was an allegation of
partiality. It was a case of scandalizing the court, hence a contempt of the court. Further, an
allegation of undue favour shown by a judge to a particular counsel, was treated to be an
allegation of partiality on the court. Hence it was a case of scandalizing the court.

Nirmaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab the party placed false case, several deliberate false attempts
were made by the party to obtain the favourable order. In this case a mother sought the custody
of minor child who alleged to be in the custody of respondents & that they have taken her out of
the country while direction was issued by the court to produce her passport. Her counsel made
the statement that the passport has been lost. When the court directed her to place on record the
details of passport, etc by an affidavit, she filed an affidavit expressing deep regret about grave
mistake & produced passport in court. The earlier stand taken by her that original passport had
been lost & an FIR had been registered stands falsified. The court further found that she had evil
desire to grab property & thus held her guilty for the contempt of court.

Protection of Section 6- When Available

In view of S.6 the making of a statement by a contemner concerning a presiding officer of a
subordinate court is protected but the condition precedent is that such statement must have been
made “in good faith”. The only tangible test which can be applied for judging the good faith of a
person in doing a certain act is as to whether he acted with due care & attention. It is surely not
open to a person to take precipitate action only on vague information receive by him from
irresponsible sources without verifying the same diligently.

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat the witness made a statement in trial court &
thereafter made statement that she was intimated, threatened & coerced to make statement in a
particular way before the trial court & thereafter disowned it. The Inquiry Officer found that
money as exchanged hands which made the said witness to state in particular way in the trial
court. The said witness could not explain her asset sources. Report of Inquiry Officer was
accepted & the witness was held liable for contempt of the SC. The witness (Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh) was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 1 year & pay cost of Rs. 50000 also.

Prejudice to or interference with, the due process of any judicial proceeding (Media Trial)
The publication which prejudices or interferes any or tends to interfere with, the due course of
any judicial proceeding is taken as contempt of court. Actually, media trial or trial by newspaper
is not considered proper because it affects the fairness of trial & is likely to cause prejudice to or
likely to interfere with, due administration of justice.
Knowledge of pendency of proceeding is considered as essential or prequisite for holding the
persn responsible for publication liable for contempt. Innocent publication has been provided
protection u/s 3 of Contempt of Courts act. S. 3(1) has made clear that a person shall not be
guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he published (whether by words spoken or written
or by sign or visible representation or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere
with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or
criminal proceeding pending at the time of publication if at the time he had no reasonable
grounds for believing that proceeding was pending. S. 3(2) makes it clear that the publication of
any such matter as is mentioned in aforesaid S. 3(1) in connection with any civil or criminal
proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute
contempt of court.

The knowledge of pendency of the case or reasonable ground for belief that the case is pending
is sufficient for committal of contempt & the intention or motive of the publisher behind the
publication is not relevant for this purpose. The knowledge of the pendency of the proceeding s
is not required to be invariable proved.

Attempts to influence decision in pending cases

Emperor v. Tushar Kanti Ghosh Allahabad HC has held that any act or conduct with reference
to a pending proceeding which has a tendency to deprive the court of the power to administer
justice duly & impartially & to reduce it to impotence as regards effectual elimination of
prejudice & prepossession amounts to contempt. A superior executive authority which is to be
passed in pending proceeding commits contempt.

A member of the legislature who issues instructions a magistrate relating to a pending case
interferes with the administration of justice & thus commits contempt.

Explanation to S. 3 provides that a judicial proceeding is said to be pending—

(A) in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,
(B) in the case of a criminal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or any
other law—
(i) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or
when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused, and
(ii) in any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding
relates, and in the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be
pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a case where an appeal or revision
is competent, until the appeal or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or
revision is preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision has
expired.
Interference or obstruction with administration of justice in any other manner
The publication or doing of any other act which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs
or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner is also taken as contempt of
court. This clause is a residuary clause & it covers the cases of the criminal contempt not
expressly covered by sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of S. 2(c ) of the contempt of courts act.
J.R. Parashar V. Prashant Bhushan the SC has held that holding a Dharna by itself may not
amount to contempt of court, but if by holding a dharna access to the courts is hindered & the
officers of the court & members of the police are not allowed free ingress & egress or the
proceedings in court are otherwise disrupted, disturbed or hampered, the dharna may amount to
contempt because the administration of justice would be obstructed.

Interference with court’s officers:

An advocate is an officer of the court & thus undue interference with the advocate in the
discharge of his professional functions amounts to contempt of court. A counsel or legal
practitioner is not merely agent of the parties but he is an officer of the court. His duty is to
inform the court as to the law & facts of the case & to aid it do justice by arriving at correct
conclusion. Interference with counsel may amount to contempt of court.
Tridivess Basu v. Jitendra Kumar Basu if a person claims the property in possession of the
receiver of his own property as he purchased it, he ought to move the court against the action of
the receiver. If he prevents a receiver in taking possession of the property or takes the possession
of the property forcibly & on demand refuses to deliver the property of the receiver, he will be
held liable for contempt of court. The person who interferes with the possession will be liable for
contempt whether he is a party to the proceeding in which the receiver has been appointed or an
outsider.

Everest Coal Co. v. State of Bihar a liquidator winding up a co. is also an officer of the court &
interference with his possession amounts to contempt of court. If the IT officer issues notice of
attachment to the official liquidator without obtaining the leave of the court appointing the
official liquidator, will amount to contempt of court. Thus, the publication or doing of any other
act which prevents an officer of the court from carrying on his official duties is taken as criminal
contempt u/s 2(c)(iii).

Interference with parties

Every person is entitled to the redress of his grievances through the assistance of the court. It is
the main function of the court to decide the disputes between the parties. Thus, any conduct
which prevents or tends to prevent a party to obtain the remedy through the court amounts to
contempt of court as it interferes with the course of justice. The parties are protected from undue
interference not only in the court but also in his way to or from, the court.
Rajendra Singh v. Uma Prasad in this case, the threatening letter to the opposite party
demanding withdrawal of certain allegations in pleading is taken as interference with course of
justice. Thus, any conduct by which course of justice is prevented either by a party or a stranger,
is contempt of court. Not only this, if a person induces or abets the other person to adopt such
conduct he will also be liable for contempt of the court.

If a person enforces his legal right against the other person, he cannot be held liable for contempt
of court on the ground that on account of his enforcement of his right there has been some harm
to a person or a party. Thus, the threat to take action for enforcement of pre-existing rights is nt
interference with due course of justice & it does not amount to contempt of court. Every person
has a right to tale recourse to law. A notice to a party in respect of independent cause of action is
not taken as contempt of court. Eg: If a person who is not a party to certain criminal proceedings
sends notice to the accused demanding damages & apology for the latter having made reference
about him in the written statement, it will not amount to interference with the course of justice as
the notice is in respect of legitimate & independent cause of action.

Interference with witnesses:

Interference with witnesses is taken very seriously & in certain circumstances, it may amount to
criminal contempt of court. Witnesses are integral part of the judicial process & they must have
freedom to perform their duties. Interference with the performance of their duties is taken as
contempt of court.
The Interference with witnesses which disturbs the free course of justice is taken as contempt of
court. Such interference may be with due course of justice in the particular case or with the
administration of justice as a continuing process. In both the conditions it is taken as contempt f
court. The interference may be before or during the trial. It may be even after the conclusion of
the trial. In all these conditions it will amount to contempt of the court.
Warayam Singh v. Sadhu Singh the SC has held that the police officers in threatening
(untruthful) complainants take the law into their own hands & even if such officers came to the
conclusion that the complainants & his witnesses were utterly untruthful, they had no business to
threaten them so that witnesses might not give evidence in court. This will amount to
interference with the court.

Interference with judges

It has been held that any interference with a judge in the discharge of his duties with a view to
influence him in deciding the case amounts to contempt of the court. Similarly, writing
threatening or abusive letter to a judge in relation to his judicial functions amounts to contempt.
In the same way, a party who made private communication by writing a letter to a court before
initiation of a case, was treated to be duty of contempt of the court.
Rajendra Sail v. MP High Court Bar Association the prosecution witness made a statement in
the public that he judge had disposition to acquit the accused, & that the judge was about to
retire, was available for sale & that the judgment was rubbish & deserved to be thrown to
dustbin. The comment made by the witness was published in the newspaper & the SC held that it
amounted to gross contempt of court.
Abuse of process of court
Abuse of process of the court calculated to hamper the due course of the judicial proceeding r the
administration of justice amounts to contempt of court.
Re A.K. Prakash it has been held that submitting successive applications on the same cause of
action is abuse of the process of court.
DDA v. Skipper Construction it has been held that the conduct of the contemner in filing
successive litigation to frustrate the orders of the court, was taken as a conduct indulging in
judicial adventurism by raiding one court after the other, amounted to contempt of the court.
Finnerty v. Smith forging the sign of the counsel or altering the date on the affidavit is taken as
contempt of court. Besides, the act which misuses the process thereby prejudicing other persons
is also taken as contempt of court.