CONTEMPT OF COURT: A WICKED DILEMMA?

Abstract

Originally, the notion of legal contempt comprised of a wrongdoing against the sovereign or his palace, the place of administration of justice. Now the law of contempt may be primeval, but it possesses utmost modern-day significance. As residents of a country we all have recourse to ways of justice if and when another individual or group of individuals attempts to overstep upon our rights and hamper our daily lives. In the same approach it is only reasonable the Court itself has some means to aid when the same thing happens to it. In its very spirit, contempt of Court refers to an act, which threatens to impede, or actually interferes with the administration of justice. It is designed to maintain the pride of the Courts and protect it from hateful attacks. However, so is not the situation in practice. More often this provision has been raised as a penalization for going versus the judiciary, and not for intervention in the due practice of law. What we must understand here is that the court is the ultimate resort for individuals to go and request justice, and it does not assist if the Court itself shows lawless and egocentric behavior. Article 129 and 215 of the Indian Constitution the Supreme Court and the High court respectively have the power to punish for the contempt of itself, which goes against the principle of nemo judex in causa sua.