Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner argued that this provision, which imposes a one-year limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings, infringes upon fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 13, 14, and 20 of the Indian Constitution. However, the court found no substantial grounds to support this claim and upheld the provision's validity.

The case originated from a dispute concerning the seniority list of officers in the Indian Foreign Service (B) cadre. The petitioner, an Under Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and a successful candidate of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), was affected by a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order. This order directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list, ensuring that officers promoted through LDCE would not be given retrospective seniority. Although some parties challenged this decision in the High Court, their appeals were dismissed.

Subsequently, the applicants before the CAT filed a contempt petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, alleging non-implementation of the tribunal's order. The CAT issued notices to the authorities, leading to the publication of a draft consolidated seniority list. The petitioner contended that the contempt petition was time-barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which stipulates that no court shall initiate contempt proceedings after one year from the date of the alleged contempt. He argued that entertaining a time-barred petition violated his fundamental rights and challenged the constitutionality of Section 20 on this basis.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined the petitioner's claims. The court noted that the petitioner failed to present substantial grounds to declare Section 20 unconstitutional. It emphasized that the provision serves a legitimate purpose by ensuring timely initiation of contempt proceedings, thereby upholding the principles of legal certainty and procedural fairness.

The court's decision aligns with previous judgments that have upheld the validity of Section 20. For instance, in S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah, the Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Article 215 of the Constitution should be exercised in consonance with validly enacted laws, including the Contempt of Courts Act. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, require strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including limitation periods. Similarly, in Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 20 to mean that proceedings for contempt are initiated when an application is made or when the court issues notice suo motu, thereby harmonizing the provision with constitutional powers.

The Delhi High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that statutory limitations on initiating contempt proceedings are consistent with constitutional mandates. It underscores the importance of balancing the courts' inherent powers to punish for contempt with the need to prevent undue delays and ensure procedural fairness. By upholding Section 20, the court affirmed that the provision does not infringe upon fundamental rights but rather serves to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.