JUDGMENT :

Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. The present contempt petition, registered as a criminal contempt case, comes with a prayer for punishing the sole respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for making deliberate, willful and disparaging remarks, calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and against the functioning of this Court. Reference in this regard is made to the news item dated 12.7.2018 in "Axomia Pratidin" which mentions about a press conference in which the sole respondent, while holding office as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) made utterances against a sitting Judge of this Court with regard to the manner in passing verdicts in matters relating to foreigners' cases.

2. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the publication disclosing the utterances and remarks made by the sole respondent, ex-facie, is a personal attack and vilification directed against the Judge, thus, tending to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability and fairness of the Judge. It is submitted that by attacking the integrity and reputation of the Judge, this hallowed institution is sought to be made the ultimate victim. The utterances, as contended, are not within the realm of constructive criticism and even after making such irresponsible and scurrilous statements, no remorse is demonstrated, far from tendering apology before this Court.

3. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the sole respondent, have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition in the present form. It is seen from the affidavit-in-opposition dated 29.5.2019 that besides questioning the locus standi of the petitioner to file the contempt petition, the issue with regard to the said contempt petition having been filed in total disregard to the provisions of section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been taken up. It is also submitted that as on date the contempt petition is hit by section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inasmuch as, no proceedings of contempt was initiated by this Court within the period of 1 (one) year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed.

4. As the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the contempt petition with due regard to the requirement for making motion, as envisaged under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in our considered opinion, goes to the root of the matter, the same is taken up for consideration at the outset. Merit of the case will stand for consideration depending upon the answer that may be made by this Court on the preliminary issue. For ready reference, the relevant portion of section 15 as well as section 20 of the aforesaid Act of 1971 are reproduced hereunder:

"15. Cognizance of Criminal Contempt in the other Cases - (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-

(a) the Advocate-General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the Advocate-General, [or]

[(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.]

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."

5. Mr. Choudhury opens by saying that neither section 15(1)(b) nor section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 restrict the plenary powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed in S.N. Nagaraja Rao Vs. Chikkachennappa & Ors. of the High Court of Karnataka, report