Llb Summer Reprt on Finance Dabur

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my teacher Mr. Vikas Gupta for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project.The blessing, help and guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark. Lastly, I thank my parents, brother, sister and friends for their constant encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible. Index 1. Introduction 2. Legislations and Judicial Pronouncements 3. Trial by Media 4. Suggestions 5. Bibliography Introduction Court proceedings would be a waste of time if nobody needed to do what the court told them, or if the court had no power to enforce its orders.Contempt of court is disregarding the court’s orders, or in any way interfering with the way the court does its job. Most courts take this very seriously, and have great power to deal with offenders. Criminal contempt The courts can only operate effectively if they are able to enforce their will. That is the main purpose of the law relating to civil contempt. However, in order to operate properly, the courts also need to be free from outside interference and to maintain their dignity. That, too, is protected by criminal contempt.It is the business of the legislature to pass laws, but it is the business of the courts to administer them; when members of a government try to interfere in court proceedings or to influence court judgments, they are likely to be reminded sternly that they are interfering. If they persist, they may well find themselves in contempt of court, even if they are government ministers. Nobody is above the law. Similarly, the courts will protect themselves from interference by people attempting to bribe or threaten anyone connected with a case.They will also protect themselves from interference by journalists through publications. Courts also guard their dignity. This is not because judges consider themselves to be special people, but because they see themselves as representatives of the law itself. It is the law which must be respected by all citizens, and in order to ensure that respect, the courts insist on maintaining dignity. Courts are usually large and imposing buildings with national emblems above the bench where the judges or magistrates sit; judges often wear robes and wigs and people bow to them in court.All of these things represent the great stature and dignity of courts, which in turn are meant to encourage people to respect and obey them. Both these things – freedom from interference and maintenance of dignity – are protected by the law relating to criminal contempt. Publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter may constitute criminal contempt: Any publication which offends the dignity of the court Judges are not above criticism, but there are limits to how extreme that criticism can be.For example, it would be criminal contempt if a newspaper, radio or television report suggested that judges were habitually drunk in court, or that they took bribes. Any publication which prejudices the course of justice A report of a court case which gives details of the defendant’s previous criminal convictions, before the end of the trial, would be criminal contempt. This is because it may prejudice the judge, magistrate or jury against the defendant, if there are many previous convictions. This would reduce the chances of a fair trial.Previous convictions (often called antecedents or priors) may not be revealed until after the verdict has been reached. They are then considered by the court to help it to decide on an appropriate punishment. Legislation and Judicial Pronouncements The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second year in the Republic of India with the objective of defining and limiting the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. The law relating to contempt of court as existed prior to the Act of 1971 was somewhat uncertain and unsatisfactory.Moreover, the jurisdiction to punish for contempt touches two important fundamental rights including the right to freedom of speech and expression and right to personal liberty. It was, therefore, considered necessary to have the entire law on the subject scrutinised by a Special Committee. Hence, a Committee was set up in 1961 under the chairmanship of late H. N. Sanyal. The recommendations of the Committee have been generally accepted by Government after considering the view expressed on those recommendations by the State Governments, Union TerritoryAdministrations, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the Judicial Commissioners. On the basis of these recommendations, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed which can be described as a comprehensive legislation. Section 2. Definitions a) Sub-clause ‘a’ of section 2 defines Contempt of Court. It says “Contempt of Court means civil contempt or criminal contempt”. b) Sub-clause ‘b’ defines civil contempt as “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”. ) Sub-clause ‘c’ defines criminal contempt as “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) scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, 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;”In Queen v. Gray, it was held that the law relating to contempt of court is well settled as act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of court. The Supreme Court in Baradakant v. Registrar, Orissa H. C. , has held that the defamatory criticism of a Judge functioning as a judge even in purely administrative or non-adjudicatory matters amounted to criminal contempt.The imputations contained in the letters have grossly vilified the High Court and has substantially interfered with the administration of justice and therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted of the offence of the criminal contempt. Making wild allegations of corruption against the presiding officer amounts to scandalizing the court. Imputation of motives of corruption to the judicial officer/authority by any person or group of persons is a serious inroad into the efficacy of judicial process and threat to judicial independence and eeds to be dealt with the strong arm of law. —U. P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association 1995 (5) SCC 716 It has been rightly held by the Supreme Court that the spirit underlying Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India must have due play but we cannot overlook the provisions of the second clauses of the Article. While it is intended that there should be Freedom of Speech and Expression, it is also intended that in exercise of the right, contempt of the Court shall not be committed.These provisions are to be read with Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution which specially confer on the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves. Article 19 (l)(a) of the constitution guarantees complete Freedom of Speech and Expression but it also makes an exception in respect of Contempt of Court. The Supreme Court has held that the guaranteed right on which the functioning of our democracy rests, is intended to give protection to expression of free opinions, to change political and social conditions and to advance human knowledge.While this right is essential to a free society, the Indian Constitution has itself imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the right abolishes the law of contempt or that attacks upon judges and courts will be condoned. However, it should also remember that the judiciary in India is an institution of democracy. We should have strict interpretation of law of contempt in India because we have written Constitution in which freedom of speech and expression has been explicitly guaranteed. Section 3.Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt (1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs, ot tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending. 2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (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. 3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid:  PROVIDED that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of— (i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, (25 of 1867); (ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 5 of the said Act. According to Section 3 of the Act, which deals with certain exceptions, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published any mater 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 the proceeding was pending. In Managing Director Vamin v. O. P. Bensal, it was held that a defence of truth or justification is not available to the publisher of a newspaper in proceedings for contempt of Court.The publication of reports of proceedings before a court of law must be true, accurate and without malice. Section 4. Fair and accurate report of Judicial proceeding not contempt  Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof. In Subhash Chand v. S. M. Aggarwal, the Court held that the media reports must represent a fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding and not be a one-sided picture. It is very essential that while reproducing the court proceedings, no words may be added, omitted or substituted. Section 5.Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt  A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided. Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments fair comments even if outspoken but made without maturity or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. —In re Roshan Lal Ahuja 1993 Supp 4 SCC 446 In a democracy fair criticism of the working of all the organs of State should be welcome and would in fact promote the interests of democratic functioning. Sec. of the Act evidently enacted with a view to secure the right of fair criticism provides that a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of the case which has been heard and finally decided. This does not mean that the right to commit for any contempt by scandalizing the court has become obsolete. The question would still be whether the publication alleged to be offending is by way of fair comment on the merits of the case. —Vincent Panikulangara v. Gopal Kurup 1982 CrLJ 2094 The Supreme Court on 15 July, 2010 dismissed a contempt petition filed against Union Minister Kapil Sibal for allegedly making contemptuous remarks against the judiciary.A Bench comprising Justices J M Panchal and A K Patnaik said the article in the newspaper, which had quoted Sibal’s message on judiciary and legal fraternity published in a magazine, did not impair administration of justice or bring it to disrepute. Section 6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to— (a) any other subordinate court, or (b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate. Explanation:    In this section, “subordinate court” means any court subordinate to a High Court.A complaint or report about a judicial officer of his dishonesty, partiality or other conduct unbecoming of a court, made to an authority to which it is subordinate, is not contempt of court if all reasonable care is taken by the makers to keep it confidential. In re Court on its Own Motion, the Court held that immunity is provided to a citizen making a complaint to the High Court against a presiding officer of a subordinate court so long as the complaint is made in good faith. Unwarranted and defamatory attack upon the character and ability of the Judge made by the counsel in the application of transfer of proceedings from the said court does not constitute a mere complaint under s. 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, but clearly constitutes criminal contempt by scandalizing the court within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 7.Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is to say– (a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force; (b) where the court, on ground of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of information of the description which is published; (c) where the court sits in chambers on in camera for reason connected with public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those proceedings; (d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an issue in proceedings. 2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the whole or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera, unless the court has expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public policy, or for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground that it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise of any power vested in it. Those who have to discharge duty in a court of justice are protected by the law are shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate interference in the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officer of the court would amount to criminal contempt and the court must take serious cognizance of such conduct. —Delhi Judicial Service Association v.State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2176  In the instant case the court held the contemner, Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt of the court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to threaten, over awe and overbear the court by using insulting disrespectful and threatening language and committed him of the said offence. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Act 129 is sui generis. The jurisdiction to take cognizance by any statute. Neither the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 nor the Advocates Act, 1961, can be preserved into service to restrict the said jurisdiction. —Ir re Vinayachandra Mishra 1995 (2) SCC 584 Section 21. Act not to apply to Nyaya Panchayata or other Village Courts. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply in relation to contempt of Nyaya Panchayats or other village Courts, by whatever name known, for the administration of justice, established under any law.Section 22. Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws relating to contempt The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts. The expression “not in derogation of” is intended to mean that substantive powers of contempt cannot be abrogated by the Act. An act or action which was not contempt of court before the Act came in force shall not be punishable as contempt of court under the Act. The provisions incorporated in the Act are supplement to already existing law of contempt as interpreted by the Supreme Court and different High CourtsTrial by Media There is today a feeling that in view of the extensive use of the television and cable services, the whole pattern of publication of news has changed and several such publications are likely to have prejudicial impact on the suspects, accused, witnesses and even Judges and in general, on the administration of justice. According to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial. Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression and Art. 9(2) permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed by statute for the purposes of various matters including ‘Contempt of Court’. Art. 19(2) does not refer to ‘administration of justice’ but interference of the administration of justice is clearly referred to in the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ in sec. 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in sec. 3 thereof as amounting to contempt. Therefore, publications which interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of justice amount to criminal contempt under that Act and if in order to preclude such interference, the provisions of that Act impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, such restrictions would be valid. In A. K. Gopalan v.Noordeen, the Supreme Court held that publications made after the arrest of a person could be criminal contempt if such publications prejudice any trial later in a criminal court. As the Explanation now stands, ‘pendency of a criminal proceeding’ is defined in clause (B) as starting from the filing of a charge sheet or challan or issuance of summons or warrant by a criminal court. The Supreme Court in the above case held that publication made even after arrest and before filing of charge sheet could also be prejudicial. If so, that guarantee must be implied in the ‘due process’ under Article 21 as explained in Maneka Gandhi’s case and to that extent, it is permissible to regulate publications by media made after arrest even if such arrest has been made before the filing of the charge sheet or challan. SuggestionIt is initially necessary to define “publication” as including publication in print and electronic media, radio broadcast and cable television and the world-wide web by insertion of an Explanation in clause(c) of Section 2 of the principal Act, to enlarge the meaning of the word ‘publication’ as stated above. http://punjabrevenue. nic. in/contempt_court1. htm http://shodhganga. inflibnet. ac. in/bitstream/10603/3570/12/12_chapter%204. pdf ——————————————– [ 2 ]. Report of Committee on Contempt of Courts (1963). [ 3 ]. H. N. Sanyal, the then Additional Solicitor General of India. [ 4 ]. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971). It came into force w. e. f. December 24, 1971. [ 5 ]. 1900 (2) QBD 36 (40). [ 6 ]. AIR 1974 SC 710. [ 7 ].Rustom Cawasjee v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318. [ 8 ]. Whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise. [ 9 ]. (1982) Cr. LJ 322 (Raj). [ 10 ]. Wasuddeoraoji v. A D Mani, AIR 1951 Nag. 26. [ 11 ]. 1984 Cr. L. J. 481. [ 12 ]. E. T. Sen v. E. Narayanan, AIR 1969 Del. 201. [ 13 ]. www. zeenews. com. /news 641275 html. [ 14 ]. re Guljari Lal, 1968 MPLJ 725 (MP). [ 15 ]. 1973 Cr LJ 1106 (P ; H). [ 16 ]. State of M. P. v. Chandrakant Saraf 1985 CrLJ 1716 [ 17 ]. High Court of Karnataka v. Y. K. Subanna 1990 Cr LJ 1159 [ 18 ]. Harish Chandra Misra v. S. Ali Ahmed, AIR 1986 Pat 65. [ 19 ]. 1969(2) SCC 734

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

x

Hi!
I'm Heidi!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out