In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has strongly condemned a growing tendency among litigants and lawyers to level scandalous and scurrilous allegations against judges when they fail to secure favorable orders. The stern observation came as the apex court decided to drop a suo motu contempt proceeding initiated against a group of lawyers.
A Trend Strongly Deprecated
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, was hearing a case concerning a transfer petition that contained objectionable remarks against Telangana High Court judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. Expressing deep concern, CJI Gavai stated that "Such a practice has to be strongly deprecated," highlighting the seriousness with which the judiciary views such attempts to malign its members.
The Contempt Proceedings and the Apology
The court's action began on July 29, 2025, when the bench took suo motu cognizance of the matter. Show cause notices were subsequently issued to the petitioner, the Advocate on Record, and the lawyers who had agreed to file the petition containing the scandalous content. The court directed them to tender an apology to Justice Bhattacharya.
In a display of judicial magnanimity, Justice Bhattacharya, by an order dated August 22, 2025, accepted the apology offered by the petitioners. Following this, during the hearing on November 10, 2025, the Supreme Court bench noted the judge's graciousness and accordingly decided to accept the unconditional apology as well, winding up the contempt proceedings.
A Note of Caution for Legal Officers
While closing the case, the bench issued a crucial caution to lawyers across the country. It emphasized that as officers of the court, advocates must exercise extreme care and diligence before signing any pleadings, especially those that make scandalous allegations against judges. The court reiterated the professional responsibility lawyers hold in maintaining the dignity of the judicial institution.
The order also referenced a recent July 23 ruling from the top court, which advised against punishing lawyers for minor mistakes that could adversely impact their careers. This balanced approach underscores the court's intent to correct professional misconduct while safeguarding the legal profession from undue hardship for genuine errors.
