Definitions
Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt; The Act came into force on 24 Dec 1971.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
(d) "High Court" means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.
Section 2, 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.
-
Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment order-14.pdf 2010-10-08 DATE VERIFIED. Contempt Act s.2(b) civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a judgment/decree/order/direction/undertaking; mere inability or non-wilful breach is not enough. Map Contempt 2.
On this section: s.2(b) civil contempt — wilful disobedience of judgment/order/undertaking is essential.
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where newspaper establishments have partially or non-implemented the Majithia Wage Board Award due to good faith misunderstanding of its scope and terms, despite the award having been approved by the Court, such default does not constitute wilful disobedience attracting liability for civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as contempt requires willful violation established beyond reasonable doubt. The statutory minimum wages notified under Section 12 of the Working Journalists Act 1955 are non-negotiable and supersede all existing contracts and undertakings; they apply to all categories of newspaper employees including contractual workers; variable pay is an integral and non-negotiable component to be included in calculation of all allowances; exemption from arrears payment is limited to cases of heavy cash losses, not mere financial difficulty. Such disputes are appropriately resolved through the remedial machinery under Section 17 of the Act (recovery application, Labour Court adjudication, and Collector enforcement) rather than through contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Court applied definition to determine whether newspaper establishments committed willful disobedience of Court's order; held that absence of willful or deliberate intention prevents liability despite default
-
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 contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature despite resulting 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 contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Newspaper establishments cannot be held liable for civil contempt for non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award where the default resulted from wrong understanding of the Award's scope rather than wilful or deliberate disobedience of the Court's order, but all newspaper establishments remain obliged to fully implement the Award, including application to contractual employees, payment of variable pay in all allowances, and arrears payment unless the establishment has suffered heavy cash losses (distinguishable from mere financial difficulty) that are crippling in nature and consistent over the statutory period, with future disputes to be resolved through the statutory mechanism under Section 17 of the Act via Labour Commissioners and Labour Courts rather than through contempt proceedings or Article 32 writ jurisdiction.
On this section: Defines civil contempt as willful disobedience of any judgment, order, or direction of a court; requires wilful or deliberate intention for liability; negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience if attention of person is drawn to court orders
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Newspaper establishments cannot be held guilty of civil contempt for alleged non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award where the Award contains ambiguous provisions and the establishment's non-compliance stems from their good-faith but erroneous understanding of the Award's scope rather than wilful disobedience of a clear court order. However, the Award must be implemented in full as clarified by the Court, including: (1) Clause 20(j) option to retain existing wages is invalid as it violates the non-negotiable minimum wage principle, and disputes about voluntariness of such undertakings must be resolved under Section 17; (2) the Award applies to contractual employees equally with regular employees; (3) variable pay must be included in computation of all allowances; and (4) only establishments suffering heavy cash losses (not mere financial difficulties) in three preceding years are exempt from arrears, with this being a question of fact to be determined case-by-case. Future disputes regarding non-implementation must be resolved through the statutory remedial machinery under Section 17 rather than contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Court applied the definition of civil contempt as wilful disobedience of a court order to assess liability of newspaper establishments
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Newspaper establishments cannot be held in civil contempt for non-implementation of the Majithia Wage Board Award when such non-implementation stems from a wrong understanding of the Award's scope rather than wilful disobedience of the explicit February 7, 2014 Supreme Court judgment. However, the Award must be implemented in full with the following clarifications: (1) wages notified under the Act are non-negotiable minimum standards which employees cannot voluntarily reduce; (2) the Award applies to all categories of employees including contractual workers; (3) variable pay must be included in computing all allowances; (4) only establishments suffering heavy cash losses (distinct from mere financial difficulty) may be exempted from arrears payment; and (5) future disputes regarding wage implementation must be resolved through the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act via Labour Commissioners and Labour Courts, not through contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Civil contempt is wilful disobedience of court order; standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt; requires clear evidence of deliberate or contumacious disobedience
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wages notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Working Journalists Act constitute guaranteed statutory minima that supersede all pre-existing contractual arrangements and are non-negotiable downward. Newspaper employees cannot be compelled to waive these statutory protections through agreements, undertakings, or opt-outs that offer lower benefits. The Majithia Wage Board Award applies to all categories of newspaper employees including contractual and temporary workers, includes variable pay in all allowance calculations, and exemptions from arrears are limited to establishments suffering heavy crippling cash losses consistent over the stipulated period, not mere financial difficulties. Non-compliance stemming from misunderstanding the Award's scope rather than willful defiance of a clear court order does not constitute civil contempt; disputes over wage implementation shall be resolved through Section 17 statutory remedial mechanisms administered by Labour Commissioners and Labour Courts rather than through contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Willful disobedience or breach of court orders; standard proof is beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal standard
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Majithia Wage Board Award, having been approved and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, must be implemented in its entirety and proper scope. The wages so notified are guaranteed to newspaper employees as a statutory entitlement, are non-negotiable, supersede all prior arrangements, and cannot be waived or reduced through voluntary undertakings or agreements. The Award applies to all categories of employees, including contractual employees; includes variable pay in all allowance calculations; and permits exemption from arrears payment only upon proof of heavy, crippling, and consistent cash losses over the specified period. Disputes arising from non-implementation must be resolved through the statutory remedial machinery under Section 17 of the Act rather than through contempt proceedings. Non-implementation or partial implementation resulting from reasonable but erroneous interpretation of the Award does not constitute wilful disobedience attracting contempt liability.
On this section: Definition of civil contempt requiring establishment of wilful disobedience of court's order beyond reasonable doubt, distinguishing from negligence or bona fide misinterpretation
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Wage Board's recommendations are approved and notified by the Central Government under the Working Journalists Act, the recommended wages become non-negotiable statutory entitlements that supersede all prior contractual arrangements. Employees cannot waive or opt out of these statutory protections. Newspaper establishments cannot claim exemption from payment of wage arrears on grounds of financial difficulty unless they prove heavy, crippling, and continuous cash losses. Disputes regarding wage board implementation should be resolved through the statutory remedial machinery under Section 17 of the Act (Labour Commissioner investigations, State Government certifications, Labour Court adjudication, and Collector enforcement) rather than through court contempt proceedings. Wrong interpretation of a court order or wage board award, without willful and deliberate defiance, does not constitute civil contempt.
On this section: Definition of civil contempt applied to assess whether newspaper establishments wilfully disobeyed court orders regarding wage payment. The Court clarified that civil contempt requires willful and deliberate disobedience, not mere negligence or wrong interpretation.
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that: (1) Wages notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act are mandatory and non-negotiable, and employees cannot be permitted to opt for lower wages through contractual agreements or undertakings, except where the employer offers more favourable benefits than those notified; (2) the Majithia Wage Board Award must be implemented in full to all categories of employees, both regular and contractual, as the statutory definitions do not exclude any category; (3) variable pay as recommended by the Wage Board must be included in computation of all allowances prescribed in the Award; (4) heavy cash losses justifying exemption from arrears payment must be distinguished from mere financial difficulties and must be proven to be crippling in nature and consistent over the specified three-year period; (5) while non-implementation of a court-approved wage award may be evident, if it is attributable to mistaken understanding or misinterpretation of the Award's scope rather than deliberate defiance, the defaulting party cannot be held liable for civil contempt as wilful disobedience is a prerequisite for contempt jurisdiction; (6) disputes regarding the voluntariness and authenticity of undertakings to accept lower wages must be determined by the fact-finding authority under Section 17 of the Act through the Labour Court mechanism, not through contempt proceedings; and (7) going forward, complaints regarding non-implementation of wage board awards or disputes about wage entitlements should be resolved through the statutory remedial machinery provided under Section 17 of the Act rather than through the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, as the latter is a drastic power to be used sparingly and only for clear, wilful violations.
On this section: Definition of civil contempt as wilful disobedience of court order or breach of undertaking to court
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wage Board recommendations notified under Section 12 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, create non-negotiable statutory entitlements that supersede all existing contracts and arrangements. An employee can agree to accept benefits more favorable than those recommended by the Wage Board, but cannot validly agree to accept benefits less favorable. Variable pay is an integral component of wages that must be used in computing all allowances. The Award applies to all categories of newspaper employees without distinction between contractual and permanent. Exemption from arrear payment requires proof of heavy cash losses (not mere financial difficulties) sustained consistently over three accounting years. Non-compliance with a wage board award due to misunderstanding of its scope, while erroneous, does not constitute willful contempt of court in the absence of deliberate disobedience. Future disputes regarding wage implementation shall be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act rather than through contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Establishes that contempt requires wilful and deliberate disobedience, not merely negligent or mistaken non-compliance
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the Central Government notifies wages under Section 12 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, such wages become statutory minimum entitlements that are non-negotiable and supersede all existing contractual arrangements, awards, agreements and conditions of service. Employees cannot validly waive or reduce such notified wages through voluntary undertakings, agreements, or invocation of Clause 20(j) of the Wage Board Award. The Wage Board Award's scope encompasses all categories of newspaper employees including contractual workers, incorporates variable pay as an integral component of the wage structure applicable to all allowance calculations, and permits withholding of arrears only where establishments have suffered heavy cash losses (distinct from mere financial difficulties) as specified in the Award. Newspaper establishments' non-compliance based on reasonable but erroneous interpretation of the Award does not constitute wilful contempt of Court, but the Court may reiterate and clarify the proper scope of its previous order to ensure compliance going forward. Future disputes regarding wage implementation shall be resolved through the remedial mechanism provided in Section 17 of the Act via Labour Courts rather than through contempt proceedings.
On this section: Definition of civil contempt requiring wilful disobedience of Court order; wilfulness excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Definition of criminal contempt covering acts that prejudice, interfere with or obstruct judicial proceedings or administration of justice
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Wage Board Award approved by Supreme Court is notified by Central Government, it must be implemented in full. Non-compliance arising from wrong interpretation of Award scope does not constitute willful disobedience for contempt purposes. However, the scope of the Award regarding (i) voluntary undertakings to opt out of revised wages, (ii) applicability to contractual employees, (iii) inclusion of variable pay in all allowances, and (iv) exemption for heavy cash losses must be clarified to ensure proper implementation. All future complaints regarding non-implementation shall be resolved through Section 17 machinery and appropriate administrative forums rather than contempt jurisdiction.
On this section: Defines civil contempt as willful disobedience of court order; requires proof of deliberate or contumacious intent, excludes casual or negligent acts
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once wages are recommended by a Wage Board and notified by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, such wages become binding, non-negotiable, and supersede all existing contracts, agreements, and arrangements. The Act contemplates no option for employees to voluntarily accept less than the notified wages. This applies to all categories of employees including contractual employees. The mandatory components of the Award including variable pay must be implemented in full, and disputes regarding non-implementation shall be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided under Section 17 of the Act rather than through contempt jurisdiction. However, newspaper establishments that acted in good faith based on a misunderstanding of the Award's scope are not guilty of wilful contempt, though they remain obligated to implement the Award fully.
On this section: Definition of civil contempt - Court applied standard requiring wilful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt; held that wrong understanding of court order is not wilful contempt
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
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 2
What have the courts held on Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (08 Oct 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.2(b) civil contempt — wilful disobedience of judgment/order/undertaking is essential. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 2 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 2, section 2 Contempt Courts Act 1971, section 2 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. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (08 Oct 2010).
What should I read with Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and has it changed?
One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently Contempt of court rules, high Court, madras, 1975. (1975).
When did Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act come into force?
Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, cited as Contempt Courts Act 1971 2, 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
- 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
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.