Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2016-06-30 allowed

Maheshwar Peri & Others vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General

Bench: 2 — Kurian

In Brief

A magazine published an article in November 2008 allegedly containing contemptuous remarks about High Court judges. Advocates filed an application seeking suo motu contempt proceedings, but without the written consent of the Advocate-General. The High Court initiated suo motu action only in April 2015—nearly seven years later. The Supreme Court held that contempt proceedings must be initiated within one year under Section 20 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. An application by advocates without Advocate-General consent is not a valid motion; therefore, the limitation period runs from the date of the alleged contempt, not the application. The suo motu action was time-barred and the appeal was allowed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Contempt of Court Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Limitation Judicial Powers

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login