Anantam IASCurrent Affairs · 25 October 2025

Contempt of Court

Study Guides · Study Notes · Indian Polity

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking criminal contempt action against advocate Rakesh Kishore.

UPSC Relevance

Important constitutional provisions are often tested in Prelims.

PYQ

2022 Prelims

Consider the following statements:

1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.

2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.

3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.

4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 1, 2 and 4

(d) 3 only

What is Contempt of Court?

Contempt of Court is the offense of being defiant or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers. It essentially refers to any conduct that tends to undermine the authority and dignity of the court or interferes with the administration of justice.

Provisions and Laws

Constitutional Provisions: Mentions ‘contempt’ but does not define it or its types.
- Article 129: Confers on the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Article 215: Confers a corresponding power on the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
- Article 142(2): Grants the Supreme Court the power to investigate and punish any contempt of itself.
- Article 19(2): Contempt of court is one of the reasonable restrictions placed on the freedom of speech and expression.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : defines civil and criminal contempt.
- This Act defines and limits the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt and distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt.

Civil vs Criminal Contempt of Court

Type of Contempt	Statutory Definition (Section)	Key Action Involved
Civil Contempt	Defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.	Wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The focus is on compelling compliance for the benefit of an opposing party.
Criminal Contempt	Defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.	Publication (by words, signs, etc.) or the doing of any act which: * Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court; * Prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or * Interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. The focus is on protecting the dignity and authority of the court and the administration of justice itself.

The Recent Case in SC

Advocate Rakesh Kishore is accused of hurling an object (described as a rolled-up sheaf of papers, but the Bar Council of India later noted an attempt to hurl his sports shoes) at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai on October 6 during court proceedings.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a petition seeking criminal contempt action against the advocate.

Consent for Action: The Attorney General (AG), R. Venkataramani, consented to the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, which is typically required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for a contempt action initiated by a private party or a Bar Association.
Judiciary’s Initial Stance (CJI & Justice Kant):

CJI B. R. Gavai himself initially brushed off the incident as “inconsequential” and a “forgotten chapter,” questioning whether further judicial time should be spent on it.
Justice Kant also observed that the act was “not worth dwelling on” and suggested allowing it to “die a natural death.”

Institutional Concern: Despite the CJI’s magnanimity, other voices within the Supreme Court judiciary argue the attack was an “affront to the judicial institution itself” and the 71-year-old perpetrator should face serious action.
- The SCBA’s strong push for proceedings, despite the CJI’s initial desire to let it go, highlights the argument that the action is not a personal matter but an attack on the dignity, authority, and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court itself.
Disciplinary Action by Bar Bodies
- Bar Council of India (BCI) Suspension: The BCI, which governs the legal profession, issued an interim suspension order against Rakesh Kishore (who is enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi).
- Basis for Suspension: The BCI action was taken under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the BCI Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, citing grave professional misconduct.
Punishment under Law: A person found guilty of contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment up to six months, or with a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. However, an apology (if bona fide) may be a defence or lead to a remission of the punishment.

Judicial Precedents

Case Name	Year	Brief Significance
E.M.S. Namboodiripad vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar	1970	Established that scandalizing the court by casting scurrilous abuse or improper imputations on the integrity, impartiality, and judicial competence of judges constitutes criminal contempt, even if the statements are politically motivated.
Arundhati Roy, In Re	2002	Reaffirmed the Court’s power to punish for criminal contempt for allegations that strike at the root of the administration of justice and are aimed at scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court. The Court held Roy guilty for her comments on judicial proceedings and the Supreme Court.
P. N. Duda vs. P. Shivshankar & Others	1988	The Supreme Court refused to initiate contempt proceedings against a Law Minister for a critical speech, observing that the Court’s shoulders are broad enough to sustain criticism and that harsh criticism, in some contexts, could be seen as an “opinion” or “historical review” and not an act of criminal contempt.
In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Another	2020	This was a suo motu (on its own motion) criminal contempt case against an advocate for two tweets criticising the SC and the sitting CJI. It upheld that scandalizing the court remains a form of criminal contempt under the 1971 Act. He was sentenced to a one-rupee fine, which he had to pay by a specific date, or face a potential three-month prison sentence or be debarred from practicing law for three years.