Facts
The respondent, Kalawati Devi, filed a complaint case (No. 49930/2016) in 2016 containing allegations against a Judge of the Delhi High Court
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1On 06.06.2019, the Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (East) directed that the matter be brought to the High Court's notice for appropriate action
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Due to non-compliance by the trial court's Ahlmad, the reference was only formally made on 17.02.2025
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Following internal administrative reviews and a misclassification by the Registry as a Writ Petition, the matter was re-numbered as a criminal contempt case on 13.02.2026
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The High Court issued notice on 26.02.2026
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Issues
Whether the criminal contempt proceedings are barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Law Applied
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which prohibits the initiation of contempt proceedings after the expiry of one year from the date the contempt is alleged to have been committed
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6Rule 5(2) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, which mirrors this statutory limitation
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 8Supreme Court precedents in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Ors. (2001) and Maheshwar Peri & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016), which establish that "initiation" in suo motu cases occurs when the court issues a notice, whereas in reference cases, it is deemed initiated on the date the subordinate court makes the reference
Source reference: p. 4-9, para. 9Reasoning
The Court observed that the allegedly contemptuous remarks were made in a complaint filed in 2016
Source reference: p. 9, para. 10Even if the trial court’s order dated 06.06.2019 (directing the matter to be brought to the High Court's notice) were considered the date of initiation, the one-year limitation period under Section 20 had already lapsed relative to the 2016 filing
Source reference: p. 9, para. 10Furthermore, the formal reference reached the High Court only in 2025, and the High Court took cognizance by issuing notice only on 26.02.2026
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5; p. 9, para. 10Since more than a year had passed since both the original act (2016) and the trial court's initial direction (2019), the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to punish for contempt
Source reference: p. 4, para. 9; p. 9, para. 11Holding
The Court held that the proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Act
The contempt proceedings were closed without any findings on the merits of the allegations
Source reference: p. 9, para. 11The Court clarified that this decision does not affect the adjudication of the underlying criminal case pending before the trial court
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Original Court PDF
Court On Its Own MotionvsKalawati Devi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in