Arundhati Roy, In Re, (2002) 3 SCC 343, he Act is far more comprehensive legislation

Arundhati Roy, In Re, (2002) 3 SCC 343, it is ruled as under;

“19[...] The Act is far more comprehensive legislation which lays down the law in respect of several matters which hitherto had been the subject of judicial exposition. The legislature appears to have kept in mind to bring the law on the subject into line with modern trends of thinking in other countries without ignoring the ground realities and prevalent socio-economic system in India, the vast majority of whose people are poor, ignorant, uneducated, easily liable to be misled, but who avowedly have tremendous faith in the dispensers of justice. The Act, which was enacted in the year 1971, much after the adoption of the Constitution by the people of India, defined criminal contempt under. 20. This Court had occasion to deal with the constitutional validity of the Act and came to the conclusion that the same was intra vires. If the constitutional validity of criminal contempt withstood the test on the touchstone of constitutionality in the light of the fundamental rights, it is too late to argue at this stage that no contempt proceedings can be initiated against a person on the ground of scandalising the authority of the court. 33. On the basis of the record, the position of law, our findings on various pleas raised and the conduct of the respondent, we have no doubt in our mind that the respondent has committed the criminal contempt of this Court by scandalising its authority with mala fide  intentions. The respondent is, therefore, held guilty for the contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

35. While convicting the respondent for the contempt of the Court, we sentence her to simple imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs 2000. In case of default in the payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.”

6.8. The abovesaid ratio in Arundhati Roy (Supra) and in Baradakanta Mishra and Ors. Vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374 were again upheld by the Seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court in the case of In C.S. Karnan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1, there it is ruled as under;

“75. However, in India, scandalising the court is still recognised to be an act constituting contempt of court. [Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, (1974) 1 SCC 374, Arundhati Roy, In re, (2002) 3 SCC 343]. Though what is the activity which constitutes scandalisation of the court is not defined or very precisely explained in the abovementioned cases, individuals were held guilty of contempt of court on the ground that their deeds scandalised the court.”