IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5032 of 2015)

MAHESHWAR PERI & OTHERS

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR

GENERAL

…

RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.

2.

What is the period of limitation for suo motu initiation of con-

tempt 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 Mis-

cellaneous 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

1

REPORTABLE

Digitally signed by

JAYANT KUMAR ARORA

Date: 2016.07.06

15:20:01 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

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, be-

fore the Chief Justice. It appears, for about four years, nothing hap-

pened 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.”

2

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 arti-

cle 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 (here-

inafter 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 ex-

piry 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, con-

tends that being an action initiated by the High Court under Article

215 of the Constitution of Indi