Time-Barred Civil Contempt Petitions Can't Be Entertained Mechanically Accepting Bogey Of 'Continuing Wrong': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta has interpreted Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and held that the action for contempt should be brought within a year, and not beyond, from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In this case, the first respondent filed a contempt petition in 2014 against the non-compliance of the High Court order issued in 2009. The respondent argued that the contempt petition is not time-barred because the non-compliance resulted in continuous wrong, which was upheld by a Single Judge of the High Court and then by a division bench of the High Court in review. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument and held: “Even if contempt is committed and within the stipulated period of one year from such commission no action is brought before the court on the specious ground that the contempt has been continuing, no party should be encouraged to wait identifiable to choose his time to approach the court.” It further remarked stale claims of contempt, often camouflaged as a “continuing wrong/breach/offence” cannot be entertained under Section 20. In this regard, it held: “If the bogey of “continuing wrong/breach/offence” is mechanically accepted whenever it is advanced as a ground for claiming exemption, an applicant may knock the doors of the Court any time suiting his convenience. If an action for contempt is brought belatedly, say any time after the initial period of limitation and years after the date of first breach, it is the prestige of the court that would seem to become a casualty during the period the breach continues. Once the dignity of the court is lowered in the eyes of the public by non-compliance of its order, it would be farcical to suddenly initiate proceedings after long lapse of time.” Therefore, the court held that per Section 20 read with Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (as applicable in this case), the limitation for the initiation of contempt action commenced on May 4, 2009, after two months from when the High Court order was pronounced as stipulated in Rule 21, and it ended on May 3, 2010. In this case, the court found that the order of the High Court was wilfully not complied. However, it held that compliance with the order can only be sought within the four courts of the contempt petition. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that the orders, upholding the legality of the contempt petition, are unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The court has further clarified the period of limitation does not stand extended to the last of repeated representations made by a party, if filing of representation is not statutorily provided. When can a contempt petition be filed beyond the time stipulated? The Supreme Court has highlighted that there could be cases where the party wants to seek an exemption from the law of limitation under Section 20. This could be done per the principle flowing from Order VII Rule 6 (Grounds of exemption from limitation law) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by showing the grounds upon which the exemption is claimed. However, the principle under Order VII Rule 6 could only be invoked if there exists an object and purpose for which the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is exercised by the court, and it is satisfied that the benefit of such an exemption ought to be extended in the given case. However, the court has held that the benefit of exemption cannot be granted on equitable consideration or on the grounds of hardship. It relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Maqbul Ahmad vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh (1935). Specifically for claiming exemption on the ground of continuing wrong/breach/offence, the court said: “Where a civil contempt is alleged by a party by referring to a “continuing wrong/breach/offence” and such allegation prima facie satisfies the court, the action for contempt is not liable to be nipped in the bud merely on the ground of it being presented beyond the period of one year as in section 20 of the Act.” Continuing wrong/breach/offence is mentioned under Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1963 as: “In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation beings to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continuous”. The interpretation of continuing wrong has been explained by the court in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple-5 J.) vs Mahant Suresh Das (2020) as “The mere fact that the effect of the injury caused has continued, is not sufficient to constitute it as a continuing wrong. For instance, when the wrong is complete as a result of the act or omission which is complained of, no continuing wrong arises even though the effect or damage that is sustained may enure in the future. What makes a wrong, a wrong of continuing nature is the breach of a duty which has not ceased...

Time-Barred Civil Contempt Petitions Can't Be Entertained Mechanically Accepting Bogey Of 'Continuing Wrong': Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags