Civil contempt sentencing: custodial punishment reserved for exceptional cases, and substantial compliance can justify fine alone.

In civil contempt, custodial punishment is justified only in exceptional cases where the disobedience substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. The High Court found that guilt was not in dispute because the appellant had admitted disobedience of the court order and breach of the undertaking, so the only issue was proportionality of sentence. As the order had been substantially complied with, the respondent had received the salary, and the surrounding circumstances were mitigating, the direction for civil prison was set aside. The contempt finding was maintained, but punishment was confined to a fine of Rs. 2,000.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence of civil prison imposed for civil contempt should be maintained, or whether the punishment should be confined to fine in view of the subsequent compliance and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The appellant had admitted disobedience of the court order and breach of the undertaking given to the Court. The challenge in appeal, therefore, did not survive on the question of guilt, but only on the proportionality of punishment. The statutory scheme under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 permits punishment for civil contempt, but imprisonment or detention in civil prison is justified only in exceptional cases where the contempt substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice. The Court found that the appellant was the honorary secretary of the institution, that salary liability lay with the State in the grant-in-aid setup, and that the order had ultimately been substantially complied with, with the respondent having received the salary. These circumstances were treated as mitigating for the purpose of sentence.

Conclusion: The direction for civil prison was set aside and the punishment was confined to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for civil contempt.

Final Conclusion: The finding of contempt was left undisturbed, but the punitive consequence was reduced to fine alone, the custodial component being found unnecessary in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: In civil contempt, imprisonment or detention in civil prison should be imposed only where the contempt is of such gravity that it substantially interferes with the due course of justice, and subsequent substantial compliance may justify limiting punishment to fine.

---