The Law Panel pointed out that in the interest of consistency

The Law Commission of India has felt that a change to limit the ambit of ‘contempt’ to just ‘wilful disobedience of directions/judgement of Court’ will effectively demote the expressions ‘contempt’ and ‘contempt of court’ as used in and referred to under the 1971 Contempt of Court Act.

The Law Commission in its 274th report opined that any attempt to amend the already existing definition of ‘contempt’ will lead to ambiguity because the same is bound to give rise to more occasions for spontaneous and multiple definitions and interpretations as the Superior Courts exercise their inherent powers of contempt.

According to the Law Panel, the law for contempt, with power to impose punishment, ensures respect for the courts in the eyes of the public by guaranteeing sanction against conduct which might assail the honour of the courts. Indeed, the courts must be able to discharge their functions without fear or favour.

The Law Panel pointed out that in the interest of consistency and coherency it is suggested to continue with the existing definition, which has stood the test of judicial scrutiny and if the provisions are narrowed in scope, there will be a reduction in impact and such a change in the law of contempt could potentially lessen the respect for or fear of the courts and their authority and functioning; and, there is a possibility that this may lead to an undesired increase in the instances of deliberate denial and blasphemy of the courts.

The Law Panel concluded that it would not be in the interest of litigants and the public at large to minimise the effect of the exercise of powers of contempt as and when the need arises.