Punishment for contempt of court
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with punishment for contempt of court. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishm The Act came into force on 24 Dec 1971.
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),—
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
Section 12, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An Advocate Convicted Of Criminal Contempt Of Court For Intimidating And Threatening A Judge, Who Refuses To Show Remorse Or Tender Sincere Apology, And Whose Conduct Constitutes A Repeated Pattern Of Disrespect Toward The Judiciary, Can Be Punished Under The Contempt Of Courts Act And Debarred From Appearing In Courts Till Purging Contempt (Demonstrated Through Genuine Remorse And Sincere Apology). Additionally, Conviction For Contempt Involving Moral Turpitude Results In Suspension Of The Advocate's Enrollment Under Section 24A For Two Years, And The Supreme Court Can Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Under Section 38 Of The Advocates Act To Impose Additional Disciplinary Suspension (License Suspension) For A Further Period When The Bar Council Fails To Take Action After Reference, Provided That The Court Has Given The Advocate Sufficient Opportunity To Purge Contempt.
On this section: Punishment For Contempt. The Court Applied This Section As The Basis For The Punishment Imposed (Imprisonment And Fine). The High Court Imposed Two Months Imprisonment And Rs. 2,000 Fine Under This Section.
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Cited to show that quasi-criminal proceedings can result in imprisonment or fine
-
Naresh Kumar Gupta vs Sood Resins and Polymers
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings are 'proceedings' within the meaning of that section. The moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors and officers) who can continue to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The rules of statutory construction (noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis) cannot be applied to restrict the meaning of 'proceedings' in Section 14(1)(a) when the expression is designedly wide and the object of the statute is clear - which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process.
On this section: Cited to show that imprisonment and fine can be imposed in quasi-criminal proceedings
-
T. Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Administrative Tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 possess the constitutional and statutory power under Article 323-A(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 17 of the Act to punish for contempt of themselves. This power is not rendered unconstitutional or otiose by the L. Chandra Kumar judgment. Although Administrative Tribunals are subordinate to High Courts for purposes of Articles 226/227 (judicial review and judicial superintendence), such subordination pertains to judicial supervision of tribunal decisions on substantive matters within Section 14(1), and does not extinguish the tribunal's independent contempt jurisdiction conferred by Article 323-A(2)(b) and Section 17. Orders of tribunals punishing for contempt are appealable exclusively to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act) within 60 days, and not subject to High Court's Articles 226/227 jurisdiction. The distinction between jurisdictional conferment and subordination is critical: transfer of jurisdiction from High Court to tribunal makes the tribunal an additional or supplemental forum exercising the same jurisdiction in matters falling within Section 14(1), but does not assign the tribunal constitutional status equivalent to a High Court. Contempt jurisdiction, essential for enforcing tribunal orders and maintaining judicial dignity, is protected by the constitutional scheme and is necessary for the effective functioning of administrative tribunals as alternative, fast-track adjudicatory systems.
On this section: Provides the nature and extent of punishment for contempt. The Court referenced this to show that legislation can guide but not restrict the inherent contempt jurisdiction of courts and tribunals
-
State vs Manak Chand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a litigant makes contemptuous remarks against the judiciary due to mental strain caused by extraordinarily prolonged litigation, and subsequently tenders an unconditional apology with assurance of future compliance, the court may exercise its discretion to discharge the contempt notice rather than impose punishment, particularly when the litigant is elderly, from a poor family, and the circumstances demonstrate genuine remorse and reformed conduct.
On this section: Criminal contempt provision under which the contempt petition was registered and proceedings initiated against the respondent for making adverse remarks against the judiciary
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 12
What have the courts held on Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P (05 Jul 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Punishment For Contempt. The Court Applied This Section As The Basis For The Punishment Imposed (Imprisonment And Fine). The High Court Imposed Two Months Imprisonment And Rs. 2,000 Fine Under This Section. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Contempt Courts Act 1971 12, section 12 Contempt Courts Act 1971, section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of U. P (05 Jul 2016).
When did Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act come into force?
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, cited as Contempt Courts Act 1971 12, came into force on 24 Dec 1971, having been enacted on 24 Dec 1971. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt482 words
- 14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court477 words
- 17. Procedure after cognizance278 words
- 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases257 words
- 7. Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases251 words
- 19. Appeals233 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.