Contempt petitions filed beyond Section 20’s one-year limitation are not maintainable.

The petitioners initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with orders dated 22 November 2018 and 30 November 2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16902 of 2016.

The State objected that the contempt petition was barred by the one-year limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court considered the objection and a Co-ordinate Bench decision concerning the limitation period.

1. Whether the contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with the 2018 orders but filed in 2023, was barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

2. Whether the contempt petition was maintainable despite the alleged non-compliance having occurred beyond the statutory limitation period

Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 bars a court from initiating contempt proceedings after the expiry of one year from the date on which the alleged contempt is committed.

The Court relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision holding that the statutory period must be observed and that an alleged default is not necessarily a continuing one.

It also referred to Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549, which recognised that the statutory limitation provision operates consistently with the contempt jurisdiction under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution.

The Court treated the alleged non-compliance with the orders of 22 November and 30 November 2018 as having occurred beyond the one-year period prescribed by Section 20.

Applying the limitation principle reflected in the Co-ordinate Bench decision, it held that the petition could not proceed as a contempt petition filed outside that period.

Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of.