The law of contempt exists to protect the administration of justice and to preserve the authority and dignity of the courts. It does not shield individual judges from criticism, nor does it exist for their personal comfort; its purpose is to ensure that the public may continue to rely on the courts as impartial bodies whose orders will be obeyed. If orders could be disregarded or proceedings obstructed without consequence, the rule of law would soon weaken. Contempt is broadly divided into two kinds, civil and criminal. Civil contempt consists of wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or the wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The word wilful is important. A party who fails to comply because it was truly impossible to do so, or because the order was unclear, cannot ordinarily be punished, although the court may direct that the order be carried out within a fixed period. Criminal contempt covers conduct that scandalises or tends to scandalise the court, that prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or that obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. Publication of words, spoken or written, signs or visible representations may fall within this category when they lower the authority of the court or create a real risk of prejudice to a pending case. Fair comment on a decision that has been finally made, expressed in temperate language and in good faith, is not contempt. Courts have repeatedly recognised that reasoned criticism is a healthy part of democratic life. The line is crossed only when criticism turns into abuse, imputes improper motives without basis, or is calculated to shake public confidence in the fairness of the judiciary as a whole. Similarly, a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in open court, published without malice, does not amount to contempt. In suitable cases, truth may be raised as a defence where it is in the public interest and is offered in good faith. The procedure is intended to be fair to the person charged. A notice must set out the allegations clearly, and the alleged contemnor must be given a proper opportunity to file a reply and to be heard, usually through counsel. An apology offered honestly and at the earliest stage may be accepted, but a mere formal expression of regret, made as a device to escape punishment, will not necessarily satisfy the court. The punishment may include a fine, simple imprisonment for a limited term, or both, and the court has regard to the gravity of the act and the conduct of the offender. A limitation period applies, so that proceedings are not initiated after a long delay. High Courts, as courts of record, hold the power to punish for contempt of themselves and of the courts subordinate to them, and an appeal is available against an order of punishment as provided by law. The jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint and only where the interference is real and substantial. Mere technical or trivial disobedience, which causes no real prejudice to the other side, is seldom treated as a ground for punishment. A court that is secure in its authority will use this power sparingly, and will be guided always by the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It is equally important to remember the limits of this power. Fair criticism of a judgment, made in good faith and in temperate language, is not contempt, because a free society must be able to discuss the working of its institutions. The law also recognises that a person charged with contempt must be given a clear notice of the allegation and a fair opportunity to explain his conduct. In many cases a sincere and unconditional apology, offered at the earliest stage, is accepted by the court, and the proceedings are closed. Where punishment is imposed, it should be proportionate to the harm caused to the administration of justice. Court staff also have a role in this area, since the careful service of orders and the accurate recording of undertakings given by parties make it easier to decide later whether an order was wilfully disobeyed. In this way the law of contempt protects the dignity of courts without silencing honest opinion.