On 17th October 1949, Mr. Nazeeruddin Ahmed [West Bengal Muslim] at the Constituent Assembly spoke as follows;
Mr. President, Sir, a warm controversy around Contempt of Court, I submit that the High Court should have the power to punish for Contempt in a summary manner. The reason is that Trial in a case must be conducted in an atmosphere of calm without any prejudice on the evidence alone. If there is no power to proceed for Contempt of Court anyone may start a newspaper trial of a case pending in a Court or it may that he indulges in public harangues about the merits of a case and thereby seriously prejudice the fair and impartial trial of a case. It is for this reason that Contempt of Court has found a place in out Statute Book – there is an Act 1926, namely, the Contempt of Court Act – there are some contempt which can be punished by even a smallest Magistrate – Mr. Sidhwa described him as the 4th Class Magistrate, there is no such thing at all. If there is a man who interrupt the proceedings of the Court, he should be punished summarily by any Court – there are many other serious crimes of contempt, which could be punished only by the High Court. It is said that the High Court becomes a Complainant or the Prosecutor – I do not think so really the dignity of the Court is impaired or its impartiality is challenged and the High Court alone should have the power to punish for contempt. To quote an example if we show contempt to the President, the President alone should have be summary power to deal with it. It is by way of analogy that Contempt of Court should be a part of the law. It is already a part of the Law. Pandit Thakurdas Bhargava pointed out that we should have already provided for Contempt of Court to be dealt with by the Courts in another place and his only objection to this Amendment is whether he should find a place in Clause II of Article 13 [old]. It is very difficult on the spur of the moment find out what is the effect of the Provision we have already made – we are changing our mind so often and introducing new Amendment of the scrappy character so soften that it is often impossible to find out what an Amendment mean – it would be at the most overlapping, if there is overlapping that would not be very much of a fault in the Constitution as there is plenty of overlapping in other place.”
Comment: The Contempt of Court should be taken as a serious matter, I am reminded of the Judgment of the Supreme Court which says the Presiding Officer of a Court can very well deal with any person under the Contempt of Court without previously warning but if it is said that admonishing to the effect that he might be punished for Contempt of Court at that moment Contempt of Court was deemed to have been committed by the Presiding Officer of the Court himself. It must be remembered that Act deals with the nomenclature Contempt of Court Act and not Contempt of Judge Act.