Maheshwar Peri & Others v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through Registrar General
Background
In November 2008, Outlook Magazine published an article (written by one of the appellants) about the Provident Fund scam that named judges allegedly involved, which some advocates complained was derogatory to the higher judiciary. Nothing happened for roughly four years until, in April 2015, more than six years after publication, the Allahabad High Court's Division Bench took "suo motu" criminal contempt action on its own motion and issued show-cause notices to the magazine's editor and the article's authors. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the action was far too late.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bars any court, whether acting suo motu or otherwise, from initiating contempt proceedings more than one year after the date of the alleged contempt. Relying on its earlier three-judge decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, the Court explained that for suo motu contempt, the proceeding is "initiated" only when the court itself issues notice (not when a private application is merely filed, since a private application without the Advocate-General's written consent has no legal standing under Section 15). Since the High Court itself had treated its 2015 order as the suo motu initiation, and that was nearly seven years after the 2008 publication, the action was time-barred, and the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt notice without needing to examine whether the article actually amounted to contempt.
Lesson Learnt
A court cannot revive or act on a long-dormant contempt complaint years later: suo motu contempt action must be formally initiated by the court itself within one year of the alleged contemptuous act, and delay beyond that bars the proceeding entirely, regardless of how serious the allegation.