False affidavit as criminal contempt: deliberate falsehood on oath can warrant punishment despite an unconditional apology.

A deliberate false statement on oath in an affidavit filed before the Court was treated as criminal contempt because a knowingly false positive assertion can lower the authority of the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The governing test noted was whether the conduct substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. An unconditional apology was held insufficient to erase the contempt in the circumstances, although the seriousness of the conduct justified a moderate fine rather than a harsher penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the making of a deliberate false statement on oath in an affidavit filed before the Court constituted criminal contempt, and whether an unconditional apology absolved the contemnors from punishment.

Analysis: A positive assertion of a fact in an affidavit, when known to be false, is not a mere denial but a deliberate falsehood. Such conduct falls within criminal contempt where it lowers the authority of the Court or interferes with the administration of justice. In deciding whether punishment should follow, the governing test is whether the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. The false statement was treated as serious, deliberate, and capable of undermining the administration of justice. The unconditional apology was found insufficient to exonerate the respondents in the circumstances, though the facts justified imposition of a moderate fine rather than a harsher penalty.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contempt for filing a false affidavit, and the unconditional apology did not wipe out the contempt. A fine was imposed on each respondent, with default imprisonment in case of non-payment.

---