After about 30 years of its enactment the Apex Court has commented adversely upon the language employed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, AIR 2001 SC 2763 : 2001 Cri LJ 4175. While dealing with the ambit of Section 20 the Court observed: “There can be little doubt that Section 20, as framed, is not happily worded. The heading of the Section, however, indicates what it was to provide for “Limitation for actions of contempt”. The wording of the Section is negative but it is clear that terminus ad quem is the initiation of proceedings for contempt” Before doubting the text of Section 20, we have to consider whether the above observation does not militate against the principles of interpretation. It is sacred principle of interpretation that if the words of statute are clear and free from any vagueness and/or are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, it must be so construed as to give ....