Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Provision On Limitation Under Contempt Of Courts Act

For context, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act states that no court shall initiate any contempt proceedings after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was considering the petitioner's plea to declare Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 13, 14 and 20 of the Constitution.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner claimed to be a successful candidate of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and working as Under Secretary (Gr.I of IFS-B) attached with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.

The petitioner claimed to be an interested party in a matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

In its order, the CAT had directed the preparation of a seniority list afresh in such a way that officers promoted through LDCE ought not to be treated as having been promoted with effect from any date, earlier to one on which he was actually promoted. Certain parties challenged the CAT's decision before the High Court, however, it was dismissed.

The applicants before CAT filed a petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the Tribunal's order was not implemented. CAT issues notice to authorities in the contempt petitioner and subsequently, the draft consolidated Seniority List of the Officers of the General Cadre of IFS(B) was published.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the CAT and Ministry of Law and Justice to rescind/cancel/withdraw Section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act the ground that it is violative of Article 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution. The petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The petitioner contended that the contempt petition before the CAT was time barred, yet the tribunal entertained the said petition and passed consequential orders resulting in the draft consolidated seniority list. He argued that the tribunal's order violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 20 of the Constitution and on this basis, he challenged Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The High Court noted that the petitioner was unable to substantiate the grounds on which a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute is available under judicial review before a Court.

It noted that the petitioner's grievance was with respect to the draft consolidated Seniority List issued in compliance of the Tribunal's order. It noted that the petition was a personal grievance based on the entertainment of the contempt petition by the Tribunal.

It observed that the petition did not contain a single ground under which an enactment can be challenged. It noted that the burden to prove invalidity of a provision lies with the person challenging it, which the petitioner in this case could not prove.

“The grounds also appear to disclose the petitioner's grievance in regard to the petitioner not being part of the contempt proceedings and as such being helpless in the said scenario. There is not even a single ground which would appeal to this Court or propel us to even issue notice since the grounds of challenge do not fall at all within the parameters as set out in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of the challenge to constitutional validity of an enactment or a statute. It is trite that there is a presumption to the constitutional validity of the provisions of a statute or an enactment. It is also trite that the burden to dislodge or demonstrate the alleged invalidity of a provision lies squarely on the person laying challenge to the same. In the present case we find that not only is the petition bereft of such substantial points on law and grounds, but also the oral submissions lack in substance.”

It said that the entertainment of the contempt petition by the CAT, publishing of draft consolidated seniority list and petitioner not being able to participate in the contempt proceedings cannot be grounds to strike down the validity of an enactment.

It noted, “These two issues can hardly be said to be a substantial ground much less a ground at all to invalidate the constitutionality of an enactment. For that matter, the oral submissions are bereft of any substance for this Court to entertain the petition to the extent of even issuing a notice.”

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498