Short answer. Yes. Section 10 lets the court that issued the contempt imprisonment order discharge the person from imprisonment on its own authority, once it appears that releasing him would not prejudice the public interest. No separate proceeding or higher court approval is required for that court to make the call.
What the law says
The court which issued the order imprisoning a person for contempt may discharge him from imprisonment when it appears that public interest will not be prejudiced by his release.
Rule 71, Section 10 — Court may release respondent. Read the full provision →
A power that belongs to the committing court
Section 10 keeps this authority with the same court that ordered the imprisonment in the first place. It does not require a petition to a higher court, a pardon, or any external process — the committing court itself may discharge the contemnor once it is satisfied the conditions for release are met. This is distinct from appellate relief under Section 11, since it does not require any higher court's involvement at all.
The only stated condition
The rule's single test is whether public interest will not be prejudiced by the release. That is a broad, discretionary standard the court applies to the circumstances before it — for example, whether the contumacious conduct has been purged, or whether continued imprisonment no longer serves any coercive or punitive purpose. A court weighing this question typically looks at whether the contemnor has purged the contempt or shown genuine compliance with the underlying order. The discretion belongs to the court alone; the contemnor has no right to demand release simply by asking, and a request that fails to show the public interest would be unharmed can be denied without a hearing. Nothing in Section 10 erases the contempt finding itself — the person remains adjudged in contempt, and the discharge only ends the imprisonment, not the underlying order the contempt was meant to enforce.
Why this matters practically
Contempt imprisonment, especially the coercive kind meant to compel compliance with an order, can in principle continue indefinitely until the contemnor obeys. Section 10 is the safety valve: it confirms the same court retains ongoing power to end the imprisonment once keeping the person confined no longer serves the public interest that justified it. Without such a mechanism, coercive contempt imprisonment could in theory continue well past the point where it serves any purpose, simply because no formal release procedure existed.
How this differs from purging the contempt directly
This discretionary release is separate from a contemnor purging the contempt by actually complying with the underlying order, which can end coercive imprisonment on its own. Section 10 instead gives the court an independent basis to end the imprisonment even without a formal act of compliance, so long as continued confinement no longer serves the public interest that justified it in the first place — a broader, more flexible route than waiting for strict compliance alone.