top of page



The current legal system is the culmination of a protracted path that began with the divine rule in proclamation, progressed to natural law, and ultimately culminated in the positive law of today. In addition to punishing anyone who attempts to undermine the authority or dignity of the legal system, contempt of court is a matter that deals with the idea that justice should be served equitably. This legislation originated in the Middle Ages when the monarch's royal powers were vested in the court. At the time, the monarch was seen as a divinely appointed figure to whom everyone answered. To win over society's support and respect for the judiciary, supplementary powers were granted to the judiciary to stop any actions that would be construed as disrespecting the court's authority. Eventually, this authority gave rise to the law of contempt. Strong public trust in the administration of justice is the foundation of the contempt law. The preservation of the dignity and majesty of the legal system is the goal of contempt jurisdiction.

India's Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines two main types of contempt: 

1. Civil contempt: Involves wilfully disobeying a court's orders, judgments, decrees, writs, or undertakings given to the court. Considered a private offense, primarily harming the person who benefits from the court's order. 

2. Criminal contempt: Encompasses actions that undermine or scandalize the authority of the court, prejudice or obstruction in the course of judicial proceedings, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice in any way. This includes actions like publishing or broadcasting such content. The Act also outlines procedures for contempt proceedings: Section 14 addresses contempt in front of a court of record & Section 15 addresses contempt occurring outside of a court of record.



Before an attempt to overturn the court's decision to bar advocate Vinay Chandra Mishra from practicing for three years due to contempt of court, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a writ appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The SCBA said that the Advocates Act, 1961, gave only the Bar Council of India or a state bar council the authority to suspend an advocate's license and that the Court lacked this authority

According to Articles 129 and 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court did have the authority to suspend an advocate's license for contempt of court, as stated in a ruling rendered on April 17, 1998. The Court did rule, however, that this authority should only be used in the most severe circumstances. The Court further concluded that the principal forum for disciplinary procedures against advocates should be the Bar Councils' disciplinary committees, with the Court only becoming involved in extraordinary circumstances.

The Court's ruling in this case is noteworthy because it makes clear the extent of the Court's authority to impose penalties for contempt of court. The Court has acknowledged that the Bar Councils play a crucial role in upholding the discipline of the legal profession, but it has also made clear that it has the power to punish advocates who commit grave misbehaviour.

  • Important conclusions from the ruling:

  • It is not necessary for an advocate to have engaged in professional misconduct for their license to be suspended for contempt of court.

  • Only in severe circumstances of wrongdoing can the authority to suspend an advocate's license be used.

  • The main venue for disciplinary actions against advocates should be the Bar Councils' disciplinary committees.

  • Only in extraordinary circumstances where the Bar Councils have neglected to act appropriately could the Court step in.

A significant issue in the evolution of Indian constitutional law is the SCBA's challenge to the Supreme Court's authority to suspend an advocate's license for contempt of court. The Court's ruling has made it clearer how the Bar Council and the Court share authority when it comes to disciplining lawyers.


A crucial part of maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of the legal system is preventing contempt of court. It ensures that courts can successfully enforce their orders and acts as a disincentive against conduct that impedes the fair administration of justice. But the use of the contempt power must be used carefully, striking a balance between the need to uphold the court's authority and the defence of fundamental rights like the right to free speech. Contempt of court can continue to be a pillar of a fair and just legal system by finding this fine balance as after the pandemic the whole law system was unstable and was on hold, causing a great impact on courts and cases. 

Nonetheless, extreme caution and prudence must be used while using contempt powers. Maintaining court power while defending fundamental rights—especially freedom of speech and expression—requires judges to walk a tightrope. The same justice ideals that contempt is intended to uphold can be undermined, reasonable criticism can be muted, and public confidence in the court system can be damaged by the overuse or capricious application of contempt powers.

7 views0 comments


bottom of page