DATE: 11/08/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai,
Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
FACTS:
The proceedings arose from Transfer
Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, filed to transfer Criminal Petition No.
4162 of 2020 from the High Court of Telangana to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur
Bench. The petitioner (Alleged Contemnor No.1) alleged that the conduct of the
learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court gave rise to apprehensions of
bias and procedural unfairness, as his counsel was restricted to only five
minutes of arguments. He further contended that since Respondent No.1 held a
significant political position and executive control, there was a likelihood of
justice being derailed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer
petition on 29th July 2025. However, while doing so, it noted that the petition
contained scandalous and scurrilous remarks against the High Court Judge.
Consequently, the Court issued show-cause notices for contempt of court to the
petitioner (Alleged Contemnor No.1), his Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Ritesh Patil
(Alleged Contemnor No.2), and drafting counsel, Mr. Nitin Meshram (Alleged
Contemnor No.3), seeking their explanation. All three alleged contemnors
subsequently filed affidavits tendering unconditional apologies.
ISSUES:
The central issues in this case were
whether the transfer of Criminal Petition No. 4162 of 2020 from the Telangana
High Court to the Bombay High Court could be justified on grounds of alleged
bias and political influence, and whether the scandalous allegations made
against the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court in the transfer
petition amounted to contempt of court by the petitioner and his counsel.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer
petition, holding that the mere involvement of a political figure in a case
cannot justify transferring proceedings from one High Court to another.
However, the Court noted the presence of scandalous allegations against the
High Court Judge and, while not immediately penalizing the contemnors, directed
them to tender unconditional apologies before the concerned Judge of the
Telangana High Court within a week. The Court clarified that the acceptance of
such apologies would first be considered by the High Court Judge, and only
thereafter would the Supreme Court decide on the apologies tendered before it.
The Court relied on earlier precedents,
particularly M.Y. Shareef v. Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1954), to
emphasize that advocates have a paramount duty to the court that overrides
their obligations to clients. Signing or drafting petitions containing
scandalous allegations against judges, without prima facie justification,
amounts to contempt of court, and counsels cannot shelter behind client
instructions. The Court stressed that lawyers must advise their clients against
such conduct, as their role is not to malign the judiciary but to uphold the
integrity of the justice system.
Further, the Court referred to E.S. Reddi
v. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. (1987), reaffirming that the dignity of
courts depends on mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. Lawyers,
particularly senior counsel, are expected to act with restraint, detachment,
and professional responsibility, even when arguing passionately for their
clients. The Court expressed concern about the growing trend of making baseless
allegations against judges, especially in politically sensitive matters, and
underscored that High Court judges are constitutional functionaries enjoying
the same immunity and independence as Supreme Court judges. To suggest that
they cannot act fairly because of political involvement in a case, the Court
held, scandalizes the institution of justice itself.
In balancing the dignity of the judiciary
with fairness to the contemnors, the Court noted that the apologies filed were
addressed only to the Supreme Court, while the defamatory remarks had been
directed at a High Court Judge. Hence, it ordered the contemnors to personally
tender unconditional apologies before the concerned High Court Judge, leaving
the question of acceptance to that Judge. It emphasized that courts derive no
pleasure from punishing lawyers for contempt and that forgiveness is the higher
principle where the contemnors acknowledge their mistakes in good faith.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the delicate balance
between a litigant’s right to seek fair justice and the judiciary’s obligation
to safeguard its own dignity. The Supreme Court rightly dismissed the transfer
petition, as the mere presence of a political figure cannot be a valid ground
to presume bias in a High Court. Accepting such reasoning would undermine the
independence and constitutional authority of High Court judges, creating a
dangerous precedent where litigants could question the integrity of courts merely
on political grounds. The Court’s decision reinforces that judicial officers,
irrespective of the court they belong to, are bound by constitutional oath to
act without fear or favour, and imputations of bias without substantive basis
amount to scandalizing the system itself.
At the same time, the Court demonstrated a
measured approach in dealing with contempt. While it acknowledged that the
allegations against the judge were scandalous, it avoided punitive measures and
instead directed the contemnors to tender unconditional apologies before the
concerned High Court judge. This shows the Court’s commitment to upholding
judicial dignity without unnecessarily stifling the Bar. By citing M.Y. Shareef
and E.S. Reddi, the Court reiterated that lawyers’ primary duty is to the court,
not just their clients, and that professional responsibility requires advising
clients against scandalous pleadings. The emphasis on forgiveness over
punishment reflects the Court’s view that the majesty of law lies not in
retribution but in reinforcing ethical conduct through correction and
acknowledgment of error.
info@adhwaitha.com