Gives a distillation of legal concepts providing a first point of reference for research or for understanding an unfamiliar area of law Judicial conflict with regard to High Court’s power with regard to the contempt of subordinate court was set at rest by the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. Contempt of Courts Act 1926 In R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 858 the Court again emphasised that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Court as a court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction, which is a special one, not arising or derived from Contempt of Courts Act and the provisions of Section 3 of 1926 Act, do not affect that power or confer a new power or jurisdiction. The Court further held that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution, no law made by a Legislature could take away the Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court nor it could confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority. Another manner of division is into courts of record and courts not of record. Certain Courts are expressly declared by statute to be courts of record. In the case of courts not expressly declared to be courts of record, the answer to the question whether a court is a court of record seems to depend in general upon whether it has power to fine or imprison, by statute or otherwise, for contempt of itself or other substantive offences; if it has such power, it seems that it is a court of record…….. proceedings of a Court of record preserved in its archives are called records, and are conclusive evidence of that which is recorded therein.” History

The principle laid down in Rex v. Davies, was followed in King v. Editor of the Daily Mail, [1921] 2 KB 733 where it was held that the High Court as a court of record has inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of a court martial which was an inferior court. Avory, J. observed:The only exception to this power, was made in subsection (3) of Section 2 which provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Section 3 of the Act restricted the punishment which could be passed by the High Court. Since doubt was raised whether the High Court as a court of record could punish contempt of itself and of courts subordinate to it if contempt was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction, the Parliament enacted the Contempt of Courts Act 1952 removing the doubt. Contempt of Courts Act 1952

Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Provides an authoritative point of reference for research or for understanding any unfamiliar term or area of law In England a superior court of record has been exercised power to indict a person for the contempt of its authority and also for the contempt of its subordinate and inferior courts in a summary manner without the aid and assistance of Jury. This power was conceded as a necessary attribute of a superior court of record under Anglo Saxon System of Jurisprudence. urn:lcp:jowittsdictionar0001unse:epub:dac836c0-c3e8-45b2-9351-a89f8f638093 Foldoutcount 0 Identifier jowittsdictionar0001unse Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t25c2zc4w Invoice 1652 Isbn 9780414051140When you are studying English law, most of the books of interest to you will be shelved on Level 2, the entrance level to the Law Bod. The question whether in the absence of any express provision a Court of Record has inherent power in respect of contempt of subordinate or inferior courts, has been considered by English and Indian Courts.

All eBooks are supplied firm sale and cannot be returned. If you believe there is a fault with your eBook Provides a concise, but comprehensive and authoritative definition of every expression that forms part of the law of England and Wales Section 5 further expanded the jurisdiction of the High Court for indicting a person in respect of contempt committed outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. The Parliamentary legislation did not confer any new or fresh power or jurisdiction on the High Courts in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it, instead it reaffirmed the inherent power of a Court of Record, having same jurisdiction, power and authority as it has been exercising prior to the enactments. Jowitt is also the starting point for research in relation to new or unfamiliar legal concepts, and the Sixth Edition fully updates readers on the wide range of new concepts introduced by legislation in the last few years, from specialist terms such as "biodiversity net gain" in the Environment Act 2021 or "no fault divorce" in the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, to a wide range of updated terms of general importance such as burden of proof, legacy and mediation, among many others.The High Court being a court of record has inherent power in respect of contempt of itself as well as of its subordinate courts even in the absence of any express provision in any Act. A fortiori the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country and superior court of record should possess the same inherent jurisdiction and power for taking action for contempt of itself, as well as, for the contempt of subordinate and inferior courts.” Supreme Court to be a court of record. — The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.’ The High Court as a court of record and as the protector of public justice throughout its jurisdiction has power to deal with contempts directed against the administration of justice, whether those contempts are committed in face of the court or outside it, and independently or whether the particular court is sitting or not sitting, and whether those contempts relate to proceedings directly concerning itself or whether they relate to proceedings concerning an inferior court, and in the latter case whether those proceedings might or might not at some stage come before the High Court.”