SC stays Calcutta High Court's suo motu contempt proceedings against police officials
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the implicated police personnel and a connected plea by the State of West Bengal challenging the maintainability of the High Court's suo motu contempt action after a five-year delay.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for the petitioners, questioned the legality of the High Court's decision, arguing that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a one-year limitation applies even to suo motu contempt proceedings.
He relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (2016), which held that the limitation period applies uniformly, whether contempt is brought to court by a private party or taken up on the court's own motion.
'
The apex court, after hearing preliminary submissions, issued notice and ordered that a notice be issued, returnable in six weeks.
"In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated May 2, 2025, shall remain stayed," the judges said.
The case pertains to the incident of April 24, 2019, when lawyers at the Howrah District Sadar Court were allegedly assaulted by police personnel who reportedly entered the court premises without authorisation.
Following public outcry, the Calcutta High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident and, in May 2019, appointed former judge Justice K. J. Sengupta as a one-man commission to conduct an inquiry.
However, the High Court revived the matter only recently, based on the findings of the Sengupta Commission. In its May 2, 2025 order, the High Court proceeded to initiate contempt action against the concerned police officials.
The petitioners argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Calcutta High Court, in its order, took a different view.
It stated, 'The bar of limitation as in Section 20 of the 1971 Act, according to us, is in respect of proceedings initiated by individuals bringing to the notice of the Court an act of contempt. The whole object of such limitation is to ensure diligence on the part of the complainant. But the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, where the Court itself initiates suo motu proceedings, cannot be curtailed by Section 20, particularly in view of the Court's inherent powers.'
Despite this interpretation by the High Court, the Supreme Court has now intervened and stayed the operation of the May 2 order, pending further consideration.
The case will be heard next after six weeks. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
18 minutes ago
- News18
'Cryptic Reasoning': SC Sets Aside HC Order On Bail To Murder Accused For Carrying Victim To Hospital
The High Court, however, allowed the said applications by way of the common impugned order of November 14, 2024, thereby enlarging the respondents on bail The Supreme Court has said the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order allowing bail to two persons in a murder case, by a cryptic reasoning and having noted they have carried the victim to the hospital after the incident, holding that the trial court has rightly noted the said aspect and declined to grant relief to them. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said the respondent-accused have been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It may be a fact that they may have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who actually had committed the offence in the first place in the instant case. 'In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is restored," the bench said. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions for bail. An FIR was registered on March 22, 2023 under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar. The said FIR was registered based on the statement given by the complainant-appellant Baljinder Singh alias Aman against accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2- Narinder Kumar alias Nindi. The appellant alleged that he received a telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property. He claimed that after receiving the said call, the appellant along with his driver Anil (deceased), Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the appellant's land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of the appellant. When the appellant came out from his car, accused No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1 gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene and later discovered that the respondents took the deceased to the hospital where he was found to be dead. The respondents were arrested in connection with FIR on March 23, 2023 and were sent to judicial custody. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2) transferred the investigation in the present matter to Ms Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Nangal before the competent court on June 20, 2023. The JMIC, Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on October 09, 2023 based on subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar. On a petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court dismissed it on July 16, 2024. However, an order was passed in interim restraining the trial court from proceeding further. This order remained in operation. The respondents filed separate bail applications before the trial court which came to be dismissed by orders on May 21, 2024 and May 24, 2024 respectively, finding that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other criminal cases have also been registered against him and keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by them. The High Court, however, allowed the said applications by way of the common impugned order of November 14, 2024, thereby enlarging the respondents on bail. Being aggrieved, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. Challenging the order, the appellant contended that the impugned order is lacking in reasons for granting relief of bail to the respondents herein inasmuch as paragraph 12 of the impugned order only records the submissions in a cryptic manner, the reasoning given in paragraphs 13 and 14 and consequently, the relief of bail was granted to the respondents herein. He submitted that the reasons are erroneous in as they do not make merit a case for grant of bail. The counsel said the respondents have been, inter alia, alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 IPC, the manner in which the offence was committed itself is gruesome and was planned and executed in a manner which reflects that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst the accused. The appellant said the respondents were in jail for a period of one year and eight months; the chargesheet had been filed and the supplementary chargesheet had also been filed. His counsel said the respondents-accused have been granted the relief of bail and on the other hand, there is a stay of trial. The said orders would require interference at the hands of this court inasmuch as the respondents herein have criminal antecedents and they are not entitled to the relief of bail having regard to the manner in which the deceased was put to death. The State counsel supported the case of the appellant-complainant herein and therefore, having regard to the merits of the case, appropriate orders may be made in these appeals. Defending the High Court's order, the respondents counsel said the fact the accused themselves carried the deceased to the hospital and saw to it that he was given treatment immediately showed that there was no criminal intent in their mind; they further submitted that the High Court has recorded in detail the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties and has come to a right conclusion and hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be dismissed. Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate or the concerned Police Station since they have been on bail pursuant to the impugned order. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 21:12 IST News india 'Cryptic Reasoning': SC Sets Aside HC Order On Bail To Murder Accused For Carrying Victim To Hospital
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
No hesitation in wiping out terrorists, wherever they are: Rajnath Sigh
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Wednesday asserted that the Narendra Modi government will not hesitate to eliminate terrorists, wherever they are, and that no distinction will be made between masterminds and the regimes which sponsor them. The former BJP president's stern message to Pakistan , without mentioning the neighbouring country by name, came in his address to the party's state executive meeting in Bihar, where assembly elections are due this year. Singh said that under Modi, the country's policy on security has turned a new leaf with steps like surgical strikes and Balakot airstrikes . Referring to the military operation that followed the Pahalgam terror attack, he said, "Operation Sindoor marked the first time when we struck at terror hideouts 100 km beyond our borders. Of course, we hit only those who had hit us, a reason why no civilians nor any military installations were targeted". "Under Modi, our policy has been not to hesitate in eliminating terrorists wherever they are. And we shall do so without making a distinction between masterminds of terror attacks and regimes which sponsor them," said the defence minister. Live Events He added that the country's defence exports have seen a sharp rise, thanks to Modi's thrust on "swadeshikaran" (production at home) and " Aatma Nirbhar Bharat ". "The Modi government works with a long-term road-map, in marked contrast with Congress-led governments of the past, which lacked direction and were driven by vote bank concerns," said the Union minister. Singh also made an oblique reference to the controversy over RSS second in command Dattatreya Hosabale's remark that the words "secular" and "socialist" be dropped from the preamble of the Constitution, as those were inserted during the infamous Emergency. "I would like to ask fake secularists, after the word secular was added to the country's Constitution, why was it not added to the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir? Should the state, where minority Hindus were being oppressed, not have been secular? Jammu and Kashmir became secular only after Article 370 was abrogated," he said. The BJP leader claimed that the party is the only political organisation in the entire world to have raised a voice against atrocities against minorities in neighbouring countries and taken a concrete step, in the form of CAA , upon coming to power. He said, "India has always believed in treating all faiths with respect. Parsis were accepted with open arms. We have one of the world's oldest churches in Kerala. Ours is the only land where all 72 sects of Islam are recognised." In contrast, even Ahmadiya Muslims are facing persecution in Pakistan, and one should not speak about minorities, Singh said. "The situation is horrifying in Bangladesh as well. The treatment meted out to Hindus there is a blot on humanity," said the defence minister.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Undressing Girl Despite Protest 'Attempt to Rape', Rules Allahabad High Court
Last Updated: The court found that it had been proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marrying and having intercourse with her The Allahabad High Court on July 1, 2025, upheld the conviction of a man for attempting to rape a girl after forcibly abducting and detaining her for nearly 20 days, holding that the offence of attempt to rape is made out even if attempt to penetration does not occur clearly, as long as intent and overt acts are established. The Court distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's findings in Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2006), where the top court had set aside the conviction under Section 376/511 of the IPC (attempt to rape) recording a finding that the accused had neither undressed himself nor even asked the prosecutrix to undress so there was no question of penetration. The top court had said that 'in the absence of any attempt to penetrate, the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC is wholly illegal and unsustainable". The bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar emphasised that the ruling in the said case was not applicable to the case at hand as here the victim had stated not only in her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate but in evidence before the trial court also that the appellant had undressed her, however on her protest, he could not do intercourse. The single judge bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pandharinath vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that if the accused-appellant had removed the victim's clothes and he had not rebutted this statement of the prosecutrix in his examination-in-chief, it was definitely a case of attempt to rape. In every crime, there is first, the intention to commit, secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly, the attempt to commit it. If the third stage, that is 'the attempt' is successful, then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete, but the law punishes the person attempting the Act under Section 511 IPC, the high court said, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The court found that in the present case, it had been proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention of marrying and having intercourse with her. The appellant with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged her modesty but also attempted rape by undressing her, however, he could not do so due to victim's protest. 'Nothing could be extracted from her (the victim) in cross-examination, which may create any doubt on her version or about the veracity of her evidence," the single judge bench noted. Further, since the FIR was lodged by the girl's mother on August 31, 2004, 21 days after the girl went missing, the appellant argued that the delay pointed to fabrication and that the incident was consensual. However, the court rejected both claims, stating that the delay had been explained and that such delays are not unusual in cases involving sexual assault due to societal stigma. Therefore, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511 and 354 of the IPC.
