Today, On 8th August, The Supreme Court told advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, “Such a petition was not expected from you,” while noting the matter was already closed but still re-listing it, saying the gap “could serve as a cooling off period.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on heard a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara, in which he has asked for the right to file an intra-court appeal against his 2019 contempt of court conviction.
Along with this, he has also requested the Court to frame proper rules or guidelines for such cases.
He has further sought a declaration that his conviction was invalid, claiming that it was given without any notice to him and also in his absence.
The matter came up before a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant made a remark to the petitioner, saying,
“Such a petition was not expected from you.”
He observed that the case had already been closed earlier and that there was no point in reopening it now. Justice Kant told Nedumpara that he was already doing well in his legal career, so there was no real need to pursue this matter further.
Even though the bench expressed these views, the Court decided to re-list the case for hearing at a later stage.
Justice Kant commented that this gap before the next hearing “could serve as a cooling off period,” giving time for the petitioner to reconsider his stand.
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara is a practising lawyer who is known for filing petitions on issues related to judicial accountability, transparency, and reforms in court procedures. He has been involved in several high-profile matters in the Supreme Court and various High Courts, often challenging existing rules or practices that he considers arbitrary or unfair.
In 2019, he was alleged for contempt of court by the Supreme Court for remarks made during a hearing.
Earlier, in 2019, In a petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara challenged the system of granting the “Senior Advocate” title in courts, arguing that it gave undue advantage to relatives of judges.
While presenting his case, he made a controversial reference to eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman, father of Justice R.F. Nariman, alleging that the designation process benefitted judges’ children.
On 12 March 2019, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran found him guilty of contempt of court. The bench observed that the reference to Fali Nariman was unrelated to the matter at hand and was intended to intimidate and embarrass the court.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. The Supreme Court of India and Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 592 of 2025