Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This application for contempt has been made with a supporting affidavit dated 1.4.99 while the original order was passed on 16.4.97 by giving a direction under the interim order upon the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee on 17.4.97 or on any subsequent date. Writ petition is still pending. It is clear that the contempt application is hit by Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which speaks no contempt proceeding will be initiated after a period of one year from the date of alleged violation to have been committed. Hence, the question arose before this court that at this belated stage in April, 2001, is it practicable to take cognizance of the matter for the purpose of issuance of Rule. In a recent judgment reported in : AIR 2000 SC 1136 (Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D. K. Mittal & Anr.) the Supreme Court held that unless and until Rule is issued, it cannot be said that a contempt is initiated. This court was pleased to deal with such judgment alongwith : AIR 1992 SC 904 (Pritam Pal vs. High Court of Matihya Pradesh, Jodhpur through Registrar) and in, 2001 (1) CHN 347 (Bomkesh Chandra Jana & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). It appears that while in delivering judgment reported in : AIR 2000 SC 1136 (supra) the Supreme Court was not pleased to take into account ratio of : AIR 1992 SC 904 (supra) which has specifically dealt with power of High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India alongwith similar power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India. The relevant part of the judgment is as follows : "The power of the Supreme Court and the High Court being the Courts of Record as embodied under Articles 129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Their inherent power is elastic unfettered and not subjected to any limit. The power conferred upon the Supreme Court and the High Court, being Courts of Record under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and the jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and therefore the constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be controlled or limited by any statute or by provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules. The caution that has to be observed in exercising the inherent power by summary procedure is that the power should be used sparingly, that the procedure to be followed should be fair and that the contemner should be made aware of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself." Therefore, there are two parts for consideration. One is in respect of the applicability of Article 215 of the Constitution of India by the High Court and other is applicability of Sec. 20 of the Contempt of the Courts Act. This Court in delivering judgment already held that the power by Article 215 as given to the High Court cannot be curtailed. High Court will proceed in its own wisdom in respect of the contempt matter in view of the Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Article 215 of the Constitution of India speaks every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt, of itself.
(2.) By citing a Single Bench judgment of this court reported in, 1996 (2) CLJ 349 (Begimkadar High School vs. Samarendra Bandapadhya & Ors.). Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of Article.215 of the Constitution of India power of the High Court cannot be curtailed by the Parliament by introduction of Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(3.) This Court has already held in, 2001 (1) CHN 347 (supra) that Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot limit the proceeding before the court which has been initiated within the prescribed period but pending beyond the period. Similarly Sec. 20 of the Act cannot limit what would be the modus operandi in taking cognizance. These are the true import of the section. Sec. 20 is procedural in nature and prescribes limitation to remove uncertainty and to eliminate the stale complaints.;