The Supreme Court, led by CJI B.R. Gavai, closed the contempt case against a lawyer and litigant who made scandalous allegations against Telangana High Court Judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, after their apology was accepted.
New Delhi: A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai in the Supreme Court today closed the contempt case against a litigant and a lawyer who had earlier filed a petition containing scandalous and disrespectful remarks against a sitting judge of the Telangana High Court.
The bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, was informed that the concerned litigant and lawyer had already submitted an apology before the High Court judge, who accepted it.
Highlighting the increasing trend of making baseless and scandalous allegations against judges whenever they deliver unfavorable orders, the Supreme Court strongly disapproved of such conduct.
In its order, the bench stated,
“Such a practice needs to be strongly deprecated. Majesty of law does not lie in punishment but forgiving when apology is made. Since the High Court judge has accepted the apology we do not intend to proceed further. With this apology is accepted and the contempt plea is closed.”
The bench further obser ed that lawyers, being officers of the court, must act with responsibility and caution, especially when signing petitions or pleadings that may contain allegations against judges. The CJI emphasized that such actions damage the reputation of the judiciary and must be avoided.
Earlier in August, the Supreme Court had directed both the litigant and the lawyer to tender an apology to the concerned judge.
The issue began when scandalous allegations were made in a transfer petition against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, who had earlier quashed an SC/ST Act case against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.
At that time, a CJI Gavai-led bench had stated,
“We direct the Registrar General of High Court to reopen the matter before the learned judge. Respondent to tender the same apology to the judge within a period of 1 week of reopening, the judge is to consider the issue of acceptance of apology within a period of 1 week.”
As the advocate involved had expressed an unconditional apology, the bench had said,
“We have no adversarial control over the judges of High Courts..As the remarks were against the High Court judge, it would be more appropriate to tender the apology to the High Court judge. We permit the Lawyer, AOR to tender the unconditional apology before the High Court.”
The court had also expressed concern about an emerging pattern among some members of the legal fraternity who criticize High Court and Trial Court judges without any valid reason.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Halts Contempt Case Against HD Kumaraswamy in Karnataka Land Grab Row
It observed that such behavior not only disrespects the judiciary but also undermines public faith in the justice system.
In July, the same CJI B.R. Gavai-led bench had issued show cause notices to petitioner N. Peddi Raju and his lawyers, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for their remarks against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.
When the counsel sought to withdraw the petition, the Supreme Court refused to permit it and dismissed the request.
The counsel had told the bench,
“This has happened for the first time..never happened in my life..”
to which the Court responded by directing the litigant to file an apology and stated that it would later decide whether the apology appeared genuine.
The contempt case was linked to a transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court to transfer a criminal case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy.
The Telangana High Court had quashed that case, ruling that there was no cognizable offence or offence of any kind disclosed in the charge sheet to allow further investigation.
The High Court had clarified that the issue mainly related to a land possession dispute, which was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.
In its detailed judgment, the High Court had observed,
“Any act of dispossession of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste would per se not amount to an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless the person/victim is abused, intimidated or harassed solely on the ground that he/she belongs to a Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe.”
The High Court also noted that the complainant had informed it about the transfer petition filed in the Supreme Court seeking to move the criminal case to another court.
ALSO READ: Criminal Contempt Case Against Mamata Banerjee Listed Before CJI Gavai’s Bench
Referring to the procedural history of the matter, the High Court had remarked,
“It may also be noted that although the matter was heard on several occasions by this Bench after its assignment from 25.04.2025 onwards, no submission was made on behalf of the respondent No.2 indicating any intention to seek a transfer the matter or that any application was being filed for that purpose before the Supreme Court…”
With the apology now accepted by the High Court judge, the Supreme Court observed that the “majesty of law does not lie in punishment but forgiving when apology is made” and formally closed the contempt proceedings.
Case Title:
In re: N. Peddi Raju
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Contempt Case
