Contempt Of Court, Because Of Its Controversial Nature, Has Created Contradictory Opinions Among The Jurists As Well As Scholars. The Contempt Jurisprudence With The Common Law Origin Has Been Transmitted Into The Indian Jurisprudence By The Courts Of Record Through Several Charters. Our Constitution Has Acknowledged And Accepted This Jurisdiction By Conferring The Status Of Court Of Record To The Supreme Court And High Courts. A Country Embedded In The Concept Of Rule Of Law Should Give Due Respect To The Law And The Organ Which Applies The Law And Administers Justice. This Organ Which Possesses Neither The Muscle Power Nor The Money Power Has To Extract Due Obedience To Its Orders Only Through This Jurisdiction. But Difficulty Arises When This Jurisdiction Clashes With The Invaluable Rights Of Citizens As Well As Those Of The Press, As Enshrined In The Constitution. It Becomes All The More Difficult When It Interferes With The Functioning Of Administrative Authorities, Corporations And The Like. It Poses Different Questions. What Constitutes A Contempt Of Court? When And How This Jurisdiction Has To Be Exercised? In What Way Is The Judiciary, One Of The Organs Of The State, Justified In Controlling Other Organs Of The State And Also Rights Of Citizens In The Name Of Contempt Jurisdiction?No Indepth Study Has Been Undertaken So Far To Ascertain The Answer To The Above Questions. The Author Has Made Sincere And Humble Attempt To Cull Out Answers To The Above Questions In The Light Of Judicial Interpretations.The Concept Of Criminal Contempt, Which Includes Prejudicing Fair Trial Or Interfering With The Administration Of Justice Or Scandalising The Court, Is Analysed In Relation To The Rights Of Individuals And Those Of The Press. The Concept Of Civil Contempt, Which Includes Disobedience To The Orders Of The Court Or Breach Of An Undertaking, Is Analysed In Relation To The Administrative Authorities And Corporations, Individuals And Subordinate Judiciary.The Existing Political And Social Scenario Requires A Comprehensive Understanding Of This Branch Of Law To Eliminate Its Possible Misinterpretation. It Is Hoped That The Observations And Suggestions Made By The Author Will Be Of Immense Help And Of Use For Students, Lawyers, Law Teachers And Administrators.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

It is generally considered that the requirement of unanimity results in more hung juries than does the alternative system of requiring only a majority of jurors to agree on a verdict. What constitutes a majority differs between jurisdictions that have embraced the concept, and may also depend on the type of offence being tried. This Report examines arguments for and against preserving the unanimity rule.