The Supreme Court on Monday issued strong remarks against the growing tendency of litigants and lawyers to criticise judges—particularly in politically sensitive cases—without any substantive grounds. The court emphasised that such actions not only undermine the dignity of the judiciary but also amount to contempt.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, directed a litigant and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology to a Telangana High Court judge against whom they had made “scurrilous allegations” in a petition.
‘High Court Judges in No Way Inferior’
Observing that High Court judges hold the same constitutional status as Supreme Court judges, the bench said:
“We have noticed that nowadays it has become a trend amongst lawyers to criticise High Court and trial court judges for no reason. It has also become a trend that whenever a political figure is involved, it is perceived that the petitioner has not got justice and seeks transfer… The judges of the High Court enjoy the same immunity as judges of the Supreme Court.”
The bench stressed that while the Supreme Court may review or modify High Court rulings, it has no administrative control over High Court judges. Under the Constitution, both sets of judges enjoy equal status and independence.
Raju had sought to transfer a case from the Telangana High Court, alleging bias and impropriety on the part of a High Court judge who had quashed a criminal case under the SC/ST Act against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.
On July 29, the CJI-led bench dismissed Raju’s petition but took note of the “scurrilous remarks” made against the judge. The court then issued contempt notices to Raju, his advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil, and other lawyers involved.
Citing a 1954 Constitution Bench ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that both litigants and lawyers are responsible for scandalous allegations in court petitions.
Supreme Court’s Directions
In its latest order, the bench instructed the litigant and his lawyers to apologise directly to the concerned Telangana High Court judge.
The apology must be unconditional and filed within a week of the case being reopened before the same judge.
The High Court judge will then decide within another week whether to accept the apology.
The Telangana High Court registrar general was directed to reopen the matter for this purpose.
The bench made it clear that while courts do not take pleasure in penalising lawyers, they will not condone conduct that interferes with judicial proceedings.
“We cannot permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against them. Here we were trying to protect lawyers, but this behaviour cannot be encouraged,” the CJI said.
The court’s observations come in the wake of a recent controversy involving the Allahabad High Court.
On August 8, following Chief Justice Gavai’s intervention, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan deleted remarks that had criticised an Allahabad High Court judge in a civil dispute case. That move underscored the Supreme Court’s stance on protecting the dignity of judicial officers from unwarranted attacks.
During Monday’s hearing, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing one of the lawyers served with a contempt notice, tendered an “unconditional and unreserved apology” and explained the circumstances under which the remarks were made.
However, the court recalled that when the contempt matter first came up on July 29, the advocates had sought to withdraw the petition after the bench expressed displeasure at its language. The court refused to allow withdrawal, noting:
“We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw. We dismissed the request.”
The bench also reminded the legal fraternity that unsubstantiated accusations against judges not only damage the judiciary’s image but also erode public confidence in the legal system.
Political Cases
A key point in the court’s remarks was the pattern it has noticed in politically linked cases. The bench observed that whenever a political figure is involved, losing parties tend to allege judicial bias or impropriety rather than focusing on legal remedies.
Such unfounded claims, the court said, harm both the credibility of the judiciary and the advocates making them. Judges, whether in High Courts or the Supreme Court, work under the same constitutional principles and are equally committed to justice, the bench reiterated.
The Larger Message to Lawyers
While the immediate case dealt with a Telangana High Court judge, the Supreme Court’s ruling sends a broader warning to lawyers across the country.
Key takeaways from the court’s stance include:
High Court judges are constitutionally equal to Supreme Court judges in status and immunity.
Baseless allegations against judges, especially in court filings, amount to contempt and will be dealt with seriously.
Political cases are not grounds to presume judicial bias without evidence.
Lawyers have a responsibility to maintain decorum and protect the dignity of the judiciary.
By directing an unconditional apology and condemning the growing trend of unverified accusations, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of respect and trust in the judicial process.
While litigants and lawyers have the right to challenge judicial decisions, such challenges must be grounded in legal reasoning—not personal attacks. In a climate where political sensitivities often overshadow legal principles, the top court’s message is clear: the dignity of judges must be preserved, and contemptuous conduct will not be tolerated.
By
