Scandalising the court through reckless allegations against a judge can amount to criminal contempt and justify punishment.

Reckless imputations of mala fides, bias, dishonesty or lack of good faith against a judicial officer, when made in relation to judicial acts, constitute criminal contempt because they scandalise the court and erode confidence in the administration of justice. The note also explains that the statutory exception for pending proceedings does not protect such scandalising contempt merely because the proceedings have ended or the notice is framed as a proposed civil claim. Punishment is not barred where the conduct substantially interferes with the due course of justice, a concept understood broadly to include the administration of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued by the appellant, containing imputations of mala fides, bias, dishonesty and lack of good faith against the judicial officer, amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and lowering its authority; (ii) Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the footing that the proceedings were no longer pending and the notice related to a proposed civil action; (iii) Whether punishment was barred by Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 because the contempt did not substantially interfere with the due course of justice.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued by the appellant, containing imputations of mala fides, bias, dishonesty and lack of good faith against the judicial officer, amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and lowering its authority.

Analysis: The notice did not confine itself to a lawful assertion of grievance. It levelled reckless and unsupported allegations that the judge had acted maliciously, dishonestly and without good faith in adjudicating the suits. The judicial officer had jurisdiction to decide the matters, and the acts complained of were done in the discharge of judicial duty. Such vilification of a judge, without particulars or factual foundation, is not protected conduct and directly tends to scandalise the court and erode confidence in the administration of justice.

Conclusion: The notice amounted to criminal contempt and the finding against the appellant was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the footing that the proceedings were no longer pending and the notice related to a proposed civil action.

Analysis: Section 3 operates as an exception only for contempt connected with pending proceedings and, in particular, with contempt falling within the interference-with-pending-proceedings and obstruction categories. It does not extend to contempt consisting of scandalising the court. The fact that execution proceedings were pending did not alter the legal position, and the assertions in the notice could not be treated as a bona fide or lawful foundation for a damages action against the judge.

Conclusion: The protection under Section 3 was unavailable to the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether punishment was barred by Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 because the contempt did not substantially interfere with the due course of justice.

Analysis: The expression "due course of justice" is of wide amplitude and includes the broader concept of the administration of justice. A contempt that scandalises a judicial officer in relation to the discharge of judicial functions necessarily tends to interfere substantially with that due course. The misconduct in the present case was serious, gross and actuated by mala fides, and therefore satisfied the statutory threshold for punishment.

Conclusion: Section 13 did not bar the imposition of sentence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for contempt were upheld, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Reckless and unsupported imputations of mala fides or dishonesty against a judge, made in relation to judicial acts, constitute criminal contempt by scandalising the court, are not protected by the exception for pending proceedings, and may be punished when they substantially interfere with the due course of justice.

---