The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea challenging the validity of limitation period of one year prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act for institution of contempt of court proceedings [Rajesh Ranjan v Union of India & Ors]. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the petitioner had failed to make a credible challenge to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 20 says no court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.“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. We do not find any reason whatsoever to entertain the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs,” the Court said in its order. .The plea was filed by one Rajesh Ranjan, an under secretary working with the Government of India, who was aggrieved by a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordering re-fixation of a seniority list in promotions through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). When the CAT order was not followed by the government, a contempt petition was instituted and the tribunal issued notice. Following this, the new seniority list was published. Meanwhile, Ranjan wrote to the government for withdrawal of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and when he received no response, he filed a case before the High Court. .After considering the case, the Court noted that his main grievance “stems from the unsubstantiated allegation” that the contempt plea before the CAT was time barred and yet the tribunal entertained it and passed consequential orders. “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,” the Bench said. Hence, the Court dismissed the plea.“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,” the Bench stated. .Advocate Gunjan Sinha appeared for the petitioner. The Central government was represented through Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj as well as advocates Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bhardwaj and Amit Kumar Rana. .[Read Order]
