Forging orders, intimidation: Adv Vikas Pahwa on what constitutes criminal contempt

The Indian Express spoke to senior advocate Vikas Pahwa for clarity on the various aspects of criminal contempt; how courts invoke it and the difference between civil and criminal contempt.

What is criminal contempt of court?

Pahwa: The law of contempt of court in India is primarily governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under this Act, criminal contempt refers to any publication or act which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of a court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner.

In simple terms, it covers any conduct—written, spoken, or otherwise—that attacks the integrity of the judiciary, lowers public confidence in the justice system, or hinders the due course of justice.

When is criminal contempt attracted?

Pahwa: Criminal contempt is attracted when a person’s conduct or publication has a real tendency to interfere with or undermine the authority of the court or the judicial process.

It may arise, for example, from imputations of bias or corruption against judges, attempts to intimidate litigants or witnesses, or the fabrication of court orders and records.

The purpose is not to shield judges from criticism but to protect the institution of justice from acts that would impair its functioning or erode public faith.

What is the difference between a civil and criminal contempt of court?

Pahwa: This is distinct from civil contempt, which concerns wilful disobedience of a court’s order or undertaking. While civil contempt aims to ensure compliance with judicial directions, criminal contempt is punitive, intended to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and the rule of law.

What are some major recent rulings regarding criminal contempt of court and significant observations of court?

Pahwa: In recent years, the Supreme Court and high courts have reaffirmed these principles.

The courts have held that forging or presenting fake court orders is among the most serious forms of criminal contempt, describing such acts as “one of the most dreaded offences” against the administration of justice.

It has also clarified that intimidating parties from approaching courts or obstructing the execution of judicial orders by way of threat, coercion or abusing the officers of the court, amounts to criminal contempt.

At the same time, the judiciary has reiterated that fair and reasonable criticism of judgments does not constitute contempt; only statements that have a substantial tendency to impair the administration of justice cross the line.

Some of the recent rulings and significant observations are reflected in the cases of Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras.

The Supreme Court has explicitly held that creating or presenting forged/fake court orders to obtain relief is a grave form of criminal contempt — and has upheld convictions in such cases. The court described fabrication of judicial orders as “one of the most dreaded acts of contempt.”

Secondly, in Arundhati Roy where the Supreme Court convicted Roy for comments and conduct that it held scandalised the court. The case is repeatedly cited for principles about when fair criticism crosses into contempt and for the proposition that courts may proceed suo motu where public confidence or judicial process is at stake.

Several high courts in recent months have treated threatening or obstructing litigants/third parties from approaching courts as serious criminal contempt, stressing that such conduct corrodes access to justice and must be dealt with firmly. We can refer to the Allahabad High Court ruling on threats obstructing approach to court.

These rulings show courts are balancing freedom of speech with protection of judicial authority, but will punish clear forgery, obstruction, intimidation or publications that have real tendency to prejudice proceedings.