Contempt of court is the offence of wilfully disobeying a court order or of doing any act that scandalises, lowers the authority of, or interferes with the administration of justice by any court. Under Indian law, it is defined in Sections 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the power to punish for contempt is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court under Article 129 and in the High Courts under Article 215.
Legal definition
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides three definitional provisions:
Section 2(a) — General definition:
"Contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt.
Section 2(b) — Civil contempt:
"Civil contempt" means 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.
Section 2(c) — Criminal contempt:
"Criminal contempt" means 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.
The constitutional foundation for contempt jurisdiction is found in Article 129 (Supreme Court as a court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself) and Article 215 (every High Court as a court of record with similar power).
Section 12 of the Act prescribes the punishment: simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to two thousand rupees, or both. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 inserted Section 13 proviso allowing "truth" as a defence to criminal contempt if the court is satisfied that the statement was made in public interest and the request for invoking the defence was bona fide.
How courts have interpreted this term
C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta AIR 1971 SC 1132
In this foundational case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the law of contempt against a challenge based on Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). O.P. Gupta had published a booklet attributing bias and dishonesty to a Supreme Court judge. The Court held that the test for criminal contempt is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge personally or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law. Gupta was found guilty and sentenced to two months' simple imprisonment.
In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745
Advocate Prashant Bhushan posted tweets criticising the Chief Justice of India and the role of the Supreme Court in democratic governance. The Court held him guilty of criminal contempt for scandalising the court, finding that the tweets undermined public confidence in the institution of the judiciary. However, exercising restraint, the Court imposed only a nominal fine of one rupee. This case reignited the debate on the scope of Section 2(c)(i) and the tension between contempt jurisdiction and free speech in a democracy.
Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar, Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374
The Supreme Court clarified that contempt proceedings extend to the full scope of administration of justice. Even acts directed at administrative functions of the judiciary can constitute contempt if they affect the administration of justice.
Types of contempt of court
- Civil contempt (Section 2(b)): Involves wilful disobedience of court orders. The remedy is typically coercive — the contemnor is directed to purge the contempt by complying with the order. Civil contempt is the more frequently invoked category, arising in execution proceedings, injunction violations, and breach of undertakings.
- Criminal contempt (Section 2(c)): Involves acts that scandalise or lower the authority of courts, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. Criminal contempt proceedings carry quasi-criminal consequences and require a higher standard of proof.
Why this matters
The law of contempt serves as the enforcement mechanism for the authority and dignity of the judiciary. Without the power to punish for contempt, court orders would be merely advisory, and the entire judicial system would lose its coercive force. For litigants and practitioners, understanding the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is essential for two reasons.
First, civil contempt is the primary remedy when an opponent fails to comply with a court order. If a party obtains an injunction or direction and the opposing party wilfully disobeys it, contempt proceedings under Section 2(b) are the enforcement mechanism. The disobedience must be "wilful" — deliberate and intentional, not inadvertent.
Second, criminal contempt has significant implications for freedom of expression. The Prashant Bhushan case demonstrated that even senior advocates can face criminal contempt for online statements. However, the 2006 amendment introduced truth as a defence, and Section 5 of the Act protects fair comment on the merits of a finally decided case.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related procedures:
Related constitutional concepts:
Frequently asked questions
What is the punishment for contempt of court in India?
Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the maximum punishment for contempt is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or a fine up to two thousand rupees, or both. In practice, courts frequently exercise restraint, imposing nominal fines or conditional sentences, particularly in criminal contempt cases.
Can truth be used as a defence against contempt of court?
Yes, since the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006, truth is a valid defence in criminal contempt proceedings. Under Section 13, the court must permit justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that the statement was made in public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide. However, the defence is not automatic — the court retains discretion in evaluating the bona fides.
Who can initiate contempt proceedings in India?
Civil contempt proceedings may be initiated by any aggrieved party whose rights under a court order have been violated. Criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court may be initiated by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, or by any person with the consent of the Attorney General. Before a High Court, the Advocate General or any person with the Advocate General's consent may initiate proceedings, in addition to the court acting suo motu.
Is contempt of court a criminal offence?
Criminal contempt under Section 2(c) is treated as a quasi-criminal proceeding, and the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil contempt under Section 2(b) is remedial in nature and requires proof on the preponderance of probabilities. While contempt can result in imprisonment, a person found guilty of contempt may also purge the contempt by complying with the court's order, particularly in civil contempt cases.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.