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?
Contents11
- A1 and 2 only
- B1, 2 and 4
- C3 and 4 only
- D3 only
Show answer
Answer: (B) 1, 2 and 4
The answer is (B) Statements 1, 2, and 4.
Statement 1 is CORRECT:
The H.N. Sanyal Committee (1961) studied contempt of court laws.
Its recommendations led to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Statement 2 is CORRECT:
Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) give these courts power to punish for their own contempt.
Statement 3 is WRONG (key trap!):
The Constitution does NOT define civil or criminal contempt.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (made by Parliament) defines these terms.
Statement 4 is CORRECT:
Since the Constitution doesn't define contempt but allows Parliament to make laws on it,
Parliament has legislative power over contempt of court matters.
The Constitution gives Supreme Court and High Courts power to punish contempt but does not define what contempt actually means - Parliament had to define it through the 1971 Act.
The key trap is assuming the Constitution defines civil and criminal contempt when only the parliamentary Act of 1971 provides these definitions.
This tests the distinction between constitutional powers (Articles 129, 215) versus statutory definitions (Contempt of Courts Act, 1971).
Constitutional Provisions on Contempt Powers
Indian Polity Article 129 Article 215 Supreme Court High Courts
Articles 129 & 215: Constitutional Contempt Powers
Article 129 empowers Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself
Article 215 empowers High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves
Constitution grants power but does NOT define what constitutes contempt
Only Supreme Court and High Courts have constitutional contempt powers, not subordinate courts
Constitutional Framework
The Constitution grants contempt powers to superior courts only — Supreme Court and High Courts. This reflects their status as constitutional courts with inherent authority to maintain their dignity and ensure compliance with their orders.
Contempt Powers Comparison
Court | Constitutional Article | Scope of Power | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court | Article 129 | Punish contempt of itself | Record court with inherent powers |
High Courts | Article 215 | Punish contempt of themselves | Constitutional courts of states |
Subordinate Courts | None | No inherent contempt power | Derive power from statutes only |
Trap: Constitution defines contempt types — WRONG. Constitution only grants power, definitions come from Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Trap: All courts have contempt powers — WRONG. Only Supreme Court and High Courts have constitutional contempt powers
Trap: Article numbers — Article 129 is Supreme Court, Article 215 is High Courts (not the reverse)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Indian Polity Contempt of Courts Act 1971 H.N. Sanyal Committee
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Definitions & Framework
H.N. Sanyal Committee (1961) recommended unified contempt law
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil and criminal contempt
Parliament has legislative power over contempt of court matters
Act provides defenses like truth, fair criticism, and good faith
Legislative Background
The H.N. Sanyal Committee (1961) studied existing contempt laws and recommended a comprehensive statute. Parliament passed the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to provide uniform definitions and procedures across all courts.
Types of Contempt
Type | Definition | Examples | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|---|
Civil Contempt | Disobedience of court orders/undertakings | Not following court decree, violating injunction | Coercive — to compel compliance |
Criminal Contempt | Scandalize/lower authority of court | Publishing statements against judge, disrupting proceedings | Punitive — to punish interference |
Key Provisions
Truth as defense: If publication is true and made in good faith for public interest
Fair criticism: Bonafide criticism of judicial acts is protected
No contempt by publication: Of substantially true fair report of judicial proceedings
Apology: Unconditional apology can lead to discharge in appropriate cases
Major Trap: Constitution defines contempt types — WRONG. Only Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil vs criminal contempt
Trap: Courts can't punish contempt without this Act — WRONG. Constitutional power exists independently, Act only defines and regulates
Trap: Committee name — H.N. Sanyal Committee, not other committee names that appear in polity questions
Parliamentary Power over Contempt Laws
Indian Polity Parliament powers to make laws
Parliament's Legislative Competence on Contempt
Parliament has power to make laws on contempt of court
Constitution grants contempt power but leaves definitions to Parliament
Entry 77 of Union List covers constitution and jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Constitutional Logic
While Articles 129 and 215 grant contempt powers to courts, the Constitution deliberately does not define what constitutes contempt. This legislative gap allows Parliament to define, regulate, and modify contempt laws through statutes like the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legislative Framework
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Constitutional Power**
Articles 129 & 215 grant contempt powers to SC and HCs`"]
s2["`**Legislative Gap**
Constitution does NOT define civil/criminal contempt`"]
s3["`**Parliamentary Action**
Parliament fills gap through Contempt of Courts Act, 1971`"]
s4["`**Statutory Definitions**
Act defines contempt types, procedures, and defenses`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4Scope of Parliamentary Power
Define contempt: What constitutes civil vs criminal contempt
Set procedures: How contempt proceedings should be conducted
Provide defenses: Truth, fair criticism, good faith as valid defenses
Regulate punishment: Maximum penalties and alternative remedies
Modify scope: Parliament can expand or restrict contempt coverage
Trap: Only courts can regulate contempt — WRONG. Parliament has clear legislative authority
Trap: Constitution is complete on contempt — WRONG. Constitution grants power but Parliament defines scope