The Supreme Court paused contempt proceedings launched by the Calcutta High Court against West Bengal police officers over the 2019 Howrah court clash. The delay of five years in initiating action raised serious legal questions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India stayed contempt proceedings started by the Calcutta High Court against West Bengal police officials. These proceedings were related to a violent incident that happened at the Howrah District Court back in April 2019.
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan was hearing petitions filed by both the West Bengal government and the police officers. They were challenging the High Court’s recent order dated May 2, 2025, which had taken suo motu (on its own) action against them after almost five years.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
The violence in question happened on April 24, 2019. It all began when a senior lawyer and a security guard from the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) got into an argument over parking. Things quickly got worse when many lawyers gathered at the spot and confronted the guard, who had allegedly insulted the elderly lawyer.
Soon, several police officers entered the court premises and reportedly attacked the lawyers using sticks and iron rods. In return, the lawyers threw stones at the civic staff. Many two-wheelers parked inside the HMC premises were also damaged.
When local police could not control the situation, the Rapid Action Force (RAF) was called in. The violence again escalated in the evening, and both police and RAF used lathi-charge (batons) to control the crowd, leaving at least 20 people injured.
The Calcutta High Court had earlier taken suo motu notice of this serious matter and appointed a one-man inquiry commission led by retired judge Justice KJ Sengupta. He submitted his report on November 30, 2019.
Now, after five years, the High Court issued a criminal contempt notice based on that report.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing the police officers, argued before the Supreme Court,
“After a delay of five years, for the first time, the High Court has purported to exercise its suo motu powers by issuing a contempt notice on 2nd May 2025.”
He also told the court that even in cases of suo motu actions, there is a legal time limit under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Singh cited a past case from 2016, Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, where the Supreme Court ruled that such contempt actions should be taken within one year of the incident or within one year of the court learning about it.
He further stated,
“In this case, on 29th April 2019, the High Court entertained a suo motu writ petition consciously. Not a suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act but a writ petition to examine the larger issue.”
However, representing the High Court, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra disagreed. He argued that the High Court was well within its rights to initiate contempt proceedings and that limitation did not apply in this case.
Referring to another Supreme Court case from 2021 (Pallav Seth v. Custodian), Luthra submitted,
“The entire case is on Pallav Seth. That issue was already clarified. Limitation does not arise. It’s a suo moto action. It’s a 2021 case.”
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court decided that the matter needed a detailed hearing later and said,
“This requires hearing. We’ll post it on some other day.”
The bench then passed an interim order to stay further contempt proceedings.
“Issue notice. Returnable in six weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated May 2, 2025 shall remain stayed.”
In its May 2025 order, the Calcutta High Court had rejected the argument that the contempt action was barred by time. It said the one-year limit only applies when the court acts on someone else’s complaint, not when it acts on its own.
The High Court had clearly stated,
“Even though the limitation as prescribed in section 20 is contained in a special statute, the powers under Article 215 where the Court had initiated suo motu writ petition taking note of an untoward incident cannot be abrogated or stultified, particularly in view of the inherent power available to the Court under Article 215.”
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing on this matter for July 29, 2025.
CASE TITLE:
Vishal Garg & Ors. vs. Registrar General & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Court Violence
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
