Consider the following statements: 1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed. 2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves. 3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. 4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer: B. Statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct; statement 3 is wrong. Statement 1 is CORRECT. The H.N. SANYAL Committee on Contempt of Courts (1963) recommended new contempt legislation. Pursuant to its report, the CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 was enacted, codifying the law on civil and criminal contempt. Statement 2 is CORRECT. ARTICLE 129 (Supreme Court) and ARTICLE 215 (High Courts) of the Constitution explicitly grant these courts the power to punish for CONTEMPT OF THEMSELVES, making them 'courts of record' with inherent power to punish contempt. Statement 3 is WRONG. The Constitution of India does NOT DEFINE Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt. These terms are defined in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, NOT in the Constitution. The Constitution merely empowers the courts to punish for contempt without defining its types. Statement 4 is CORRECT. The CONSTITUTION (Articles 129, 215 and 142 read with Entry 77 of Union List and Entry 14 of Concurrent List) empowers PARLIAMENT to make laws on contempt of court. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was enacted under this power. Source: Articles 129, 142, 215 of Constitution / Contempt of Courts Act 1971 / H.N. Sanyal Committee Report.