Contempt Proceedings Must Ordinarily Be Initiated Within One Year From The Date Of Alleged Contempt: Supreme Court
The Court held that delay beyond the prescribed limitation period for initiating contempt proceedings cannot ordinarily be condoned, leading to dismissal of the petition.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that contempt proceedings must ordinarily be initiated within one year from the date of commission of the alleged contempt, and delay beyond this period disentitles a party from invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Court.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed alleging violation of an earlier status quo order passed by the Court in proceedings relating to land transactions.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed: “the limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings would ordinarily be one year from the date of commission of the contempt.”
Advocates Shalini Kaul, AOR & Prashant Bhushan, AOR, appeared for the appellants, while Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, AOR & Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR, represented the respondents.
Background
The contempt petition arose in the backdrop of proceedings concerning land disputes in Thazhambur Village, where this Court had earlier directed maintenance of the status quo by order dated 21.10.2019.
It was alleged by the petitioners that several transactions had been carried out in violation of the status quo order and that such acts constituted contempt of court.
The transactions cited in support of the contempt petition pertained to the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. However, the contempt petition came to be filed only on 29.01.2026.
The petitioners sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged violators for breach of the Court’s earlier directions.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the issue of limitation governing the initiation of contempt proceedings and reiterated the settled position of law.
Citing Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian (2001) the Court observed that the limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings would ordinarily be one year from the date of commission of the contempt.
On the facts of the matter, the Court noted that the alleged acts of contempt had occurred between 2019 and 2022, whereas the petition was filed in January 2026. It held that the delay was clearly beyond the permissible period of one year and could not be condoned.
The Court also took note of the office report, which indicated a lesser delay but found that the actual delay was substantially higher. The Court held that once the delay exceeds the prescribed limitation period, the Court would not ordinarily entertain the contempt petition.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed on the ground of delay.
Cause Title: The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. S. Raja & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 407)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Shalini Kaul, AOR & Prashant Bhushan, AOR, with Others
Respondents: Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, AOR and Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR, with Others