LexMAHESHWAR PERI & OTHERS versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 213 . MAHESHWAR PERI & OTHERS v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL (Criminal Appeal No. 549of2016) JUNE30.2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 20 - Suo motu initiation of contempt proceedings - Period of limitation - Publication of article authored by the third appellant in a magazine wherein names of iudges allegedly involved in the case incorporated - Application by advocate before the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings on its own motion since the article caused insult to the higher judiciary - Petition placed before the Single Judge and thereafter, the Chief Justice - Four years later matter listed before the Division Bench of the High Court - High Court initiated suo motu action, and name of the petitioner was not to be shown in the cause list - On appeal, held: Article having been published in 2008 . and the High Court having initiated the suo motu action only in 2015, the same is hit by the limitation of one year - Action uls. 15 was initiated suo motu by the High Court - It was said that the name of the petitioner is not to be shown in the cause list - Apparently, it can only he suo motu because the application filed by the advocates, is without the consent in writing of the Advocate General - Only application other than by the Advocate General, contemplated uls. 15, is the motion made by any person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General - Constitution of India - Arts.129 and 215. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The criminal contempt of a court subordinate to High Court can be initiated either suo motu or on a motion made by the Advocate General. The suo motu action is set in motion on a Reference made to it by the subordinate court. In view of the process involved in making the Reference by the subordinate court, in *Pal/av Sheth case, it has been held that the Reference 213 A B c D E F G H 214 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R. is the starting point of the process of initiation of the action for contempt. Unless a court was to take s110 mot11 action, the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would normally commence with the filing of an application drawing the attention of the court to the contempt having been committed. The application is the motion provided under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such a motion, by any person other than Advocate General, can be made only with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. In other words, any other application made by a person without the consent of the Advocate General, is not an application in the eyes of law. [Para 14] (218- H; 219-A-C] 1.2 The High Court is clear in its mind that the action under Section 15 of the Act is initiated suo motu by the High Court. To make it abundantly clear in the impugned order, it is said that the name of the petitioner is not to be shown in the cause list. Apparently, it can only be s110 motu because the application filed by the advocates, and which is referred to in the impugned order, is without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The only application other than by the Advocate General, contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, is the motion made by any person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Being a jurisdiction which, when exercised, is fraught with serious consequences, the Parliament has thought it justifiably fit to provide for such safeguards. Thus, the impugned article, having been published on 10.11.2008 and the High Court having initiated the suo motu action only on 28.04.2015, the same is hit by the limitation of one year prescribed under the Act. [Para 161 [219- G-H; 220-A]] *Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others (2001) 7 SCC 549: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 referred to Para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 21 of H 2008. MAHESHWAR PERI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 215 ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL A. J. Bhambhani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. for the A Appellants. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.