The Telangana High Court accepted apologies from a litigant and two lawyers who accused a judge of bias. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya strongly warned that personal attacks on judges damage public trust in the judiciary.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court accepted apologies from a litigant and two lawyers who had earlier made “scurrilous” allegations of bias against a sitting judge.
These allegations had already caused trouble for them before the Supreme Court earlier this month.
The ruling was passed on August 22 by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, who also raised serious concerns about the increasing trend of making personal attacks on judges.
The Court said,
“A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demand release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge. Such reckless allegations derail the course of justice by creating an environment of intimidation which is not inclusive to the effective administration of justice. Personal attacks on Judges breach the safety net of impartial decision-making and is antithetical to independent judges. Targetting of Judges makes for sceptical and unsure Judges.”
Justice Bhattacharya noted that while it has become easy for dissatisfied people to attack judges in newspapers or on social media, judges themselves cannot publicly defend their own integrity.
This, the Court observed, ultimately harms the faith of common people in the justice system.
“The ‘Majesty’ of a Court is an inalienable part of the respect associated with upholding the Rule of Law. Attacks on Judges irrevocable dent the dignity of Courts as impartial arbiters of justice and affects public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Advocates, as equal participants in the quest for justice, have a greater responsibility in ensuring that the Court is not brought to disrepute.”
The Court then accepted the apologies of the litigant and lawyers. It observed that the authority of the judiciary does not come from punishing or retaliating, but from its ability to maintain balance in the scales of justice.
Justice Bhattacharya also expressed her gratitude towards the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai, for standing in her support.
Her order recorded,
“This Court remains grateful and indebted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.”
The controversy began earlier this month when contempt proceedings were initiated against one N Peddi Raju and two lawyers, Advocates Ritesh Patil and Nitin Meshram. They had claimed there was a “likelihood of derailment of justice” in a case involving Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy.
The case related to allegations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where the Chief Minister had received relief from the High Court.
Peddi Raju, through his lawyers, filed a petition before the Supreme Court asking for the case to be transferred out of the Telangana High Court. The petition alleged that the High Court judge who heard the case was not impartial. It also alleged that Raju’s lawyer was given only five minutes to present arguments.
The Supreme Court, however, condemned these accusations and issued a contempt notice against Raju and his two lawyers. On August 11, the apex court directed them to apologise before Justice Bhattacharya. The Supreme Court clarified that it would be up to Justice Bhattacharya to decide whether to accept the apology.
On August 22, Justice Bhattacharya accepted their apologies. However, she also noted that the claim of not being given a fair hearing earlier was contrary to the available records.
The High Court further emphasised that while it is important to allow lawyers enough time to argue and while litigants can challenge judgments through proper legal channels, personal attacks against judges are completely uncalled for.
The ruling clearly stated,
“While criticizing the judgment is part of the legal process, personal attacks on a judge on allegations of bias and collateral motives rupture the implicit trust between the Court and the officers of the Court.”
Before concluding, Justice Bhattacharya underlined that judgeship is not about power but about the moral responsibility to deliver justice with honesty and compassion.
Her order added,
“The common man should repose full faith and confidence in the Courts. Fortunately, notwithstanding the occasional stresses and strains, Courts continue to be proud flag-bearers of justice.”
CASE TITLE:
Anumula Revanth Reddy vs State of Telangana and anr.
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 Personal Attacks on Judges
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
