Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by— (a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, [or] [(c) in rela The Act came into force on 24 Dec 1971.
(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by—
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, 1 [or]
1 [(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.]
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.
Explanation.—In this section, the expression "Advocate-General" means,—
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;
(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf
Section 15, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
Bal Thackeray v. Harish Pimpalkhute
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment order-1.pdf 2004-11-29 DATE VERIFIED (Sabharwal, Dharmadhikari & Chatterjee JJ.). Contempt of Courts Act s.15: private criminal-contempt motion without Advocate-General consent is not maintainable unless the Court itself takes suo motu cognizance; HC conviction set aside. Map Contempt 15.
On this section: s.15 cognizance — private criminal-contempt motion without AG consent not maintainable absent true suo motu initiation.
-
Vilas V. Sanghai vs Sumermal Mishrimal Bafna
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal contempt proceedings initiated by a High Court against a police officer in respect of contempt of a subordinate court must strictly comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such proceedings can only be initiated on a reference from the subordinate court itself or on a motion made by the Advocate General. Proceedings initiated on an application by a private aggrieved party without the Advocate General's consent and without a reference from the subordinate court are vitiated ab initio and render the conviction and sentence passed therein void. Procedural non-compliance in contempt proceedings cannot be cured by the merits of the case, and the court must first satisfy itself that the procedural prerequisites have been fulfilled before adjudicating on the substantive merits of the contempt charge.
On this section: The Court held that Section 15(2) mandates that for criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action only on a reference made by the subordinate court or on a motion by the Advocate General. The Court found that the proceedings were initiated through an application by the respondent without the required consent or reference, thereby violating the mandatory procedure. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement was held to vitiate the entire proceedings, making the impugned order neither just nor legal.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sumermal M. Bafna
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal contempt proceedings against officials of a subordinate court cannot be validly initiated by a private complainant without compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Specifically, such proceedings require either a reference from the subordinate court itself or a motion by the Advocate General (or written consent of the Advocate General). Proceedings initiated without such prerequisite are vitiated ab initio, and any conviction or order passed thereupon is void and must be set aside, regardless of whether substantive breach of undertaking may have occurred.
On this section: Prescribes that Supreme Court or High Court may take action on own motion or on motion by Advocate-General or any other person with Advocate-General's written consent
-
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: Reference For Criminal Contempt. The Civil Judge Made A Reference Under This Section To The High Court, Which Is The Prescribed Procedure For Initiating Contempt Proceedings.
-
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When Parliament transfers judicial functions traditionally exercised by courts to tribunals, the standards for tribunal member qualifications must be as nearly as possible equal to those for High Court judges to preserve judicial independence and the rule of law. Specifically: (1) Only judges and advocates with prescribed experience can be judicial members; (2) Only Secretary/Additional Secretary level officers with specialized expertise in the relevant field can be technical members; (3) The selection committee must have 4 members (2 from judiciary, 2 from executive) with the Chief Justice of India having a casting vote to ensure judicial independence in the selection process; (4) A Constitution Bench judgment establishing these standards binds subsequent legislation and cannot be circumvented by re-enacting similar provisions with minor variations. The gradual dilution of tribunal member qualifications represents an erosion of judicial independence that courts must prevent through judicial review.
On this section: Referenced in Section 425 of Companies Act, 2013 regarding tribunal power to punish for contempt
-
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: Referenced in Section 17 of Administrative Tribunals Act regarding the Advocate-General representation, which is modified to refer to Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for Central Tribunal
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.
Made under this section, and citing it
4 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 15
What have the courts held on Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
Bal Thackeray v. Harish Pimpalkhute (29 Nov 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.15 cognizance — private criminal-contempt motion without AG consent not maintainable absent true suo motu initiation. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 15 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 15, section 15 Contempt Courts Act 1971, section 15 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. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Bal Thackeray v. Harish Pimpalkhute (29 Nov 2004).
What should I read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 14 (Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 4 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Rules of Bombay High Court on Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (2014), then The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (2005).
When did Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act come into force?
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, cited as Contempt Courts Act 1971 15, 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
- 12. Punishment for contempt of court465 words
- 17. Procedure after cognizance278 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.