Role of Attorney General in Contempt Proceedings

Subject – Polity

Context – Attorney General okays contempt proceedings against Yati Narsingh anand over remarks against Constitution

Concept –

Contempt of Court

According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt of court can either be civil contempt or criminal contempt.
Civil contempt means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is attracted by the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:

scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

In 2006, the government brought in an amendment, which now provides “truth” as defence provided it is bona fide and in public interest.

Role of Attorney General

Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, describes the procedure for contempt proceedings against an individual.
In the case of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and in the case of High Courts, the Advocate General, may bring in a motion for initiating a case of criminal contempt.
However, if the motion is brought by any other person, the consent of the Attorney General or the Advocate General in writing is required.
It has to specify the contempt for which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Is AG’s consent mandatory for all contempt of court cases?

It is mandatory when a private citizen wants to initiate a case of contempt of court against a person.
The objective behind AG’s consent is to save the judicial time of the court as it will be wasted if a frivolous petition occurs.
AG’s consent is not required when the court itself initiates a contempt of court case (suomotu) as it did in the case of Prashant Bhushan case.
Article 129 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate contempt cases on its own, independent of the motion brought before it by the AG or with the consent of the AG.

What happens if AG denies consent?

If AG denies consent, petition ends there itself.
Earlier AG denied consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against actor SwaraBhasker& against author Shefali Vaidya.
However, complainant can urge the court to take suomotu cognizance.

What happens after the AG has granted consent?

After the consent, notice is served personally to the person against whom the proceedings are sought to be initiated by the court.
If the court decides not to serve the notice personally, the court has to record the reasons for it.
If the court is satisfied that the alleged contemnor is likely to abscond or evade judicial proceedings, it can order attachment of property of a value that it deems reasonable.
Once the notice is served, the alleged contemnor may file an affidavit in support of his defence, explaining the nature and circumstances of her remarks.
Then the case has to be heard by at least two judge bench which will take into account any evidence available to check the affidavit and pass appropriate orders.