VERY IMPORTANT POINT
It is only when the Court has formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemners should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the Court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt. That is the point of time to find out whether contempt proceedings are initiated within time stipulated under Section 20.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 20-Limitation for initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings-Initiation of proceedings , what amounts to-Issuance of show cause notice for initiation of proceedings does not amount to initiation of proceedings under Section 20-Only when Court forms opinion that prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and issues show cause why contemner be not punished, Court could be said to have initiated contempt proceedings-Material point of time for limitation of one year is the latter.
        In Section 20, the word initiate qualifies any proceedings for contempt . It is not the initiation of just any proceedings; the proceedings initiated have to be proceedings for contempt. (Para 9)
       Filing of an application or petition for initiating proceedings for contempt or a mere receipt of such reference by the Court does not amount to initiation of the proceedings by Court. On receiving any such document it is usual with the Courts to commence some proceedings by employing an expression such as admit , rule , issue notice or issue notice to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated . In all such cases the notice is issued either in routine or because the Court has not yet felt satisfied that a case for initiating any proceedings for contempt has been made out and therefore the Court calls upon the opposite party to admit or deny the allegations made or to collect more facts so as to satisfy itself if a case for initiating the proceedings for contempt was made out. Such a notice is certainly anterior to initiation. The tenor of the notice is itself suggestive of the fact that in spite of having applied its mind to the allegations and the material placed before it the Court was not satisfied of the need for initiating proceedings for contempt; it was still desirous of ascertaining facts or collecting further material whereon to formulate such opinion. It is only when the Court has formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemners should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the Court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt. It is the result of a conscious application of the mind of the Court to the facts and the material before it. Such initiation of proceedings for contempt based on application of mind by the Court to the facts of the case and the material before it must take place within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed failing which the jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings for contempt is lost. The heading of Section 20 is limitation for actions for contempt . Strictly speaking, this section does not provide limitation in the sense in which the term is understood in the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act also does not, therefore, apply. Section 20 strikes at the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate any proceedings for contempt. (Para 13)
       A look at the concept of contempt and need for care and circumspection to be exercised before initiating proceedings for contempt could show the necessity for enacting Section 20 and devising therein the concept of initiation of proceedings for contempt . Availability of an independent judiciary and an atmosphere wherein Judges may act independently and fearlessly is the source of existence of civilisation in society. The writ issued by the Court must be obeyed. It is the binding efficacy attaching with the commands of the Court and the respect for the orders of the Court which deter the aggrieved persons from taking the law in their own hands because they are assured of an efficacious civilised method of settlement of disputes being available to them wherein they shall be heard and their legitimate grievances redeemed. Any act or omission which undermines the dignity of the Court is therefore viewed with concern by the society and the Court treats it as an obligation to zealously guard against any onslaught on its dignity. (Para 14)
       The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. That is why the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in spite of a case of contempt having been made out are both discretionary with the Court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the Court and the alleged Contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. Certain principles have emerged. A jurisdiction in contempt shall be exercised only on a clear case having been made out. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. It is not personal glorification of a Judge in his office but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of justice administration system effectively which dictates the conscience of a Judge to move or not to move in contempt jurisdiction. Often an apology is accepted and the felony condoned if the Judge feels convinced of the genuineness of the apology and the prestige of the Court having been restored. Source of initiation of contempt proceedings may be suo motu, on a Reference being made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General or on Reference made by a Subordinate Court in case of criminal contempt. A private party or a litigant may also invite the attention of the Court to such facts as may persuade the Court in initiating proceedings for contempt. However, such person filing an application or petition before the Court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the Court. It is thereafter for the Court to act on such information or not to act though the private party or litigant moving the Court may at the discretion of the Court continue to render its assistance during the course of proceedings. That is why it has been held that an informant does not have a right to filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act against an order refusing to initiate the contempt proceedings or disposing the application or petition filed for initiating such proceedings. He cannot be called an aggrieved party. (Para 15)
       Where contempt was alleged to have been committed on 11.1.1987 and the Court issued show cause notice for initiation of contempt proceedings on 15.1.1987 and notice to show cause why the alleged contemner be not punished was issued on 6.1.1988 but subsequently the High Court, without going into the merits of the allegations made, formed an opinion that mere issuing of notice for showing cause against did not amount to initiation of proceedings under the Act and inasmuch as the proceedings were not initiated till then the bar enacted by Section 20 of the Act was attracted and therefore the application filed by the appellant was liable to the rejected.
       Held : The order which was passed on 15.1.1987 had called upon the respondents only to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated. After the cause was shown the Court was to make up its mind whether to initiate or not to initiate proceedings for contempt. It was not an initiation of proceedings. We will ignore the order dated 16.12.1987 as it was not signed. But the order dated 6.1.1988 issuing notices to the opposite parties to show cause why they be not punished for disobeying the order dated 9.12.1986, shows and it will be assumed that the Court had applied its mind to the facts and material placed before it and had formed an opinion that a case for initiating proceedings for contempt was made out. Need for issuance of such notices was conceded to by the Advocate General as also by the counsel for the respondents. That is why it directed the respondents to be called upon to show cause why they be not punished for disobedience of the order of the Court. The proceedings were therefore initiated on 6.1.1988 and were within the limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Act. The impugned order directing dropping of the proceedings is based on an erroneous view of Section 20 of the Act and hence is liable to be set aside. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-This appeal is directed against an order dated 23.11.1989 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act , for short) have been directed to be dropped as barred by Section 20 of the Act.

2. We are not concerned with the merits of the allegations made by the appellant and denied by the respondents, constituting the gravamen of alleged contempt. We are concerned only with the question whether the bar created by Section 20 of the Act was attracted to the facts of the case or not.

3. It appears that the appellant was sought to be dispossessed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and Allahabad Development Authority by demolishing and removing certain construction existing over a piece of land. The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 20471 of 1986 before the High Court of Allahabad seeking a writ or direction commanding the respondents not to dispossess or interfere with the possession of the appellant. On 19.12.1986 Shri A.K. Mohiley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents gave an undertaking before the Court in the following terms :

"Shri A.K. Mohiley, counsel for Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad undertakes before us that the Nagar Mahapalika will not disturb or demolish the construction in question made by the petitioner till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

The undertaking is placed on record. The application accordingly dismissed."

4. According to the appellant, the employees of the respondents demolished the appellant s construction in the morning of 11.1.1987. The appellant moved an application before the Court seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Act against the respondents. On 15.1.1987 the Court passed the following order :-

"Issue show cause notice to opposite parties as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for defiance of order dated 19.12.1986 passed by this court in civil writ petition No. 20471 of 1988, O.P. Jaiswal v. Nagar Mahapalika and others. List it for orders on 4.2.87."

(italics by us)

5. The respondents, i.e., the alleged contemners appeared before the Court and filed their reply. On 16.12.1987 when the matter came up for hearing before the Court, the Court passed the following order :-

"Apparently till now notice to show cause has been issued to the opposite parties as to why proceedings be not initiated. Manifestly the application would become non maintainable after 11.1.1988.

The learned Advocate General has very fairly conceded that in view of the matter having been heard on several dates the notices to show cause to the opposite parties as to why they should not be punished for disobeying the order of this court dated 19.12.1986 can be issued."

6. It appears that the abovesaid order, though it was dictated in the Court, was not signed by the presiding Judge. The attention of the Court having been invited to this fact, on 6.1.1988 the Court passed the following order :-

"6.1.1988

The case could not be taken up on the date fixed i.e. 5.1.1988. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Shri Ashok Mahiley agrees that the notices be issued in view of statement earlier made by the learned Advocate General fairly conceding that the notices be issued to show cause why the OPs be not punished to disobeying the order dated 19.12.1986. Issue notice to the O.Ps. However, notices be not sent to the opposite parties as Shri Ashok Mohiley accepts them on their behalf. List for hearing on 28.1.1988.

Sd/- Judge."

(italics by us)

7. On 23.11.1989 the High Court, without going into the merits of the allegations made, formed an opinion that mere issuing of notice for showing cause against did not amount to initiation of proceedings under the Act and inasmuch as the proceedings were not initiated till then the bar enacted by Section 20 of the Act was attracted and therefore the application filed by the appellant was liable to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 414

Cases Referred (1)