IMPORTANT POINT
Reference is starting point of process of initiation of action for contempt.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted.

2. What is the period of limitation for suo motu initiation of contempt proceedings, is the short question for consideration in this case.

3. The Outlook Magazine, in its 10.11.2008 edition, published an article authored by the third appellant, which mainly dealt with the infamous Provident Fund Scam. The names of the Judges, who are allegedly involved in the case, were published.

4. On 18.11.2008, one Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Veer Singh, Advocates practicing in the High Court of Allahabad, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2008 with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to proceed for initiating Criminal Contempt proceedings on its own motion against aforesaid opposite parties and they be punished accordingly under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and or to pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

5. According to them, the article “has caused great insult to the Higher Judiciary. The remarks are derogatory and have lowered the authority of the Higher Judiciary.” Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/High Court of Allahabad submits that the petition was placed before a Single Judge of the High Court, and thereafter, before the Chief Justice. It appears, for about four years, nothing happened in the matter until it was listed before the Division Bench of the High Court leading to the impugned order dated 28.04.2015. It was held in the impugned order that:

“… The publication dated 10.11.2008 at page 56, 57, 58, 59 as mentioned above has caused great insult to the higher Judiciary. The remarks are derogatory and lower the authority of the higher Judiciary. Hence, it is a fit case to take ‘suo motu’ action by this Court. Accordingly, we take ‘suo motu’ action. Hence the name of the petitioner is not to be shown in the cause list.”

xxx xxx xxx xxx

“Let a notice be issued to contemnor opposite party no. 2,3,4, namely, Mr. Maheshwer Peri, Mr. Bishwadeep Moitra, Sushri Chandrani Benerji through Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad to show cause why the charges be not framed against them for committing contempt of this Court and to punish them in accordance with law. They shall also appear in person on the next date.”

6. Aggrieved, appellants are before this Court.

7. As we propose to deal with the legal contention on limitation, it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the article actually constitutes contempt.

8. The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the High Court, having initiated action only after four years of the alleged contempt, the whole proceedings are barred by Section 20 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which has prescribed the period of limitation of one year for initiating any proceedings of contempt, be it suo motu or otherwise. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

“20. Limitation for actions for contempt. - No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the High Court, however, contends that being an action initiated by the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and since the genesis of the initiation of the contempt is the application dated 18.11.2008 filed by Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Veer Singh, Advocates, and since the High Court had considered the application within one year and had taken action by issuing notice, though after six years, it is within time.

10. Our attention is invited to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, (2001) 7 SCC 549 and particular to paragraphs-39 and 40. Paragraphs 39 and 40 reads as follows:

“39. In the case of criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High