Safiya Malik

The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Arindam Mukherjee has held that the bar of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not restrict the Court’s inherent power to initiate contempt on its own motion. The Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against police personnel whose acts on April 24, 2019 were found to prima facie interfere with the administration of justice. The Court issued rule against the concerned respondents and fixed June 25, 2025 as the returnable date.

On the directions of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Calcutta, matters relating to incidents that occurred on April 24, 2019, in and around Howrah Sadar Court were brought under judicial scrutiny. This led to suo moto registration of a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Also Read: Contractual service must be counted for pension | Supreme Court invokes Rule 17 CCS | Orders Union to define option mechanism for regularised employees

Multiple applications were filed in relation to this matter. CAN 5 of 2019 was filed by seventeen applicants, all staff of Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC), seeking to be added as party respondents. CAN 6 of 2019, also by staff of HMC, prayed for a stay on proceedings arising out of complaints related to the incident. CAN 7 of 2019 was filed by Dr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, a Deputy Commissioner of Police, seeking stay of proceedings against police officials for the April 24 incident. CAN 8 of 2020 was moved by other accused police officials seeking access to audio, video, and documentary evidence gathered by the One-Man Enquiry Commissioner. Finally, CAN 9 of 2022 was filed by representatives of the Howrah Bar Association seeking substitution and implementation of directions issued in the Commission’s report.

Pursuant to the suo moto writ petition, by an order dated May 22, 2019, a One-Man Enquiry Commission headed by Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, former Chief Justice of Andhra High Court, was appointed to investigate the incident on seven framed issues. The Commissioner submitted his report on December 23, 2019.

Applicants in CAN 9 of 2022 relied on the Commissioner’s report to seek initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. They contended that the report clearly stated that the accused police officials' actions had hampered judicial work, thereby interfering with the administration of justice. They asserted this falls within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In contrast, the respondent police officials submitted that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings suo moto in respect of Subordinate Courts under Section 15(2) of the 1971 Act, unless by reference or Advocate General’s motion. They also contended that the Court was barred under Section 20 of the Act from initiating contempt proceedings after one year from the alleged contemptuous act. Supporting these arguments, they cited numerous judgments including S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah (2024 SCC Online SC 1764), Pallav Sheth v. Custodian (2001) 7 SCC 549, and Dr. L.P. Mishra v. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 379.

Additionally, the respondents contended that their actions on April 24, 2019, were part of their official duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and could not constitute criminal contempt.

In reply, the applicants argued that inherent powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution remained unaffected. They relied on Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406 to assert that Section 15(1) allows the High Court to take suo moto cognizance in such matters. They further submitted that limitation under Section 20 was inapplicable since the Court had taken suo moto cognizance on April 29, 2019, almost immediately after the incident, and further action was delayed due to the pandemic.

The Court recorded that "contempt proceedings have two distinct parts." It explained that in the first part, cognizance can be taken either through an application, a reference, Advocate General’s motion, or on its own motion. It stated in unequivocal terms, "The Court at this stage has two options i.e. either to issue show cause... or to drop the proceedings holding no prima facie case has been made out."

The Court carefully noted, "In the instant case, admittedly, some untoward incidents took place in the premises of Howrah Sadar Court on 24th April, 2024." Highlighting the findings of the One-Man Enquiry Commission, it stated, "It is prima facie apparent that there has been interference with or obstruction to the administration of justice."

The Bench observed that the Enquiry Commission’s finding — that the police personnel had entered the premises "without being invited by either the District Judge or the Chief Judicial Magistrate" — had remained uncontroverted. The report, the Court recorded, had not been challenged. The respondents had been afforded adequate opportunity during the enquiry and were given inspection of all documents and records.

While dealing with the argument that suo moto initiation was barred under Section 15(2), the Court stated, "Section 10 of the 1971 Act on being read conjointly with Section 15(1)... leaves no manner of doubt that a High Court on its own motion has an inherent power to take cognizance of an act of criminal contempt."

Addressing the issue of limitation, the Court opined, "We are of the view that the bar of Section 20 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case." It ruled that since suo moto writ proceedings were initiated by the Court immediately after the incident, and the report followed, the bar could not apply. The Court stated that "powers under Article 215... cannot be abrogated or stultified."

The Court relied on Pallav Sheth to record that exceptions exist to Section 20 limitation, particularly when the High Court acts on its own motion. The Court thus observed, "We therefore hold that the plea of limitation... does not hold good."

On the argument of the respondents regarding their official duty, the Court held, "The argument advanced... is unsustainable at this stage in view of the findings of the One-man Enquiry Commission." It found that "prima facie elements of holding as to interference with the administration of justice has been observed."

Ultimately, the Court concluded that, "We are therefore minded to take cognizance of the act and conduct of the respondent police personnel at this stage."

The Court, after careful consideration of the records, rival submissions, and statutory provisions, issued its final directions.

It held that in view of the report of the One-Man Enquiry Commission and the findings therein, there existed prima facie material to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned police officials. The Court stated that the respondents had full opportunity to participate in the enquiry and inspect documents and the findings remained unchallenged.

The Court expressly rejected the defence raised under Sections 15(2) and 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It held that in view of its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the limitation under Section 20 was not applicable in this case. It further recorded that criminal contempt of subordinate courts can be taken cognizance of by the High Court suo moto in appropriate cases.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court rejects compromise | Locking of university gate deemed serious breach | FIR to proceed as per law

Accordingly, the Court issued a rule against the respondents, being police officials numbered as respondents no. 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. It directed that criminal contempt proceedings be initiated against them.

Finally, the Court fixed June 25, 2025 as the returnable date for the contempt rule. It directed that the said rule be made returnable on the said date and disposed of the pending application accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate; Saptangsu Basu, Senior Advocate; Subhasis Chakraborty, Advocate; Arindam Ganguli, Advocate; Sushmita Kumari Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Kishore Dutta, Advocate General; T.M. Siddiqui, Additional Government Pleader; Suddhadev Adak, Advocate; Jaydip Kar, Senior Advocate; Siddhartha Bannerjee, Advocate; Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate; Rana Mukherjee, Advocate; L. Vishal Kumar, Advocate; Tanoy Chakraborty, Advocate; Musharof Hossain, Advocate; Karabi Ray, Advocate; Sandipan Banerjee, Advocate; S. Roy Chowdhury, Advocate

Case Title: The Court On Its Own Motion v. Registrar General, Calcutta High Court & Ors.

Neutral Citation: Not mentioned (judgment dated 2nd May, 2025)

Case Number: WPA 9313 of 2019

Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Arindam Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]