Supreme Court Warns Against Scandalous Allegations on Judges; Accepts Apology and Closes Contempt Proceedings
Case Name: In Re: N. Peddi Raju and Others — Suo Motu Contempt Petition
Citation: 2025 INSC 1321
Date of Judgment/Order: 10 November 2025
Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI, and K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting High Court Judge in pleadings amounts to serious misconduct and invites contempt jurisdiction. The Court reaffirmed the duty of lawyers as officers of the court, referring to M.Y. Shareef and T.V. Choudhary to reiterate that counsel must not sign pleadings containing reckless allegations without adequate basis. Despite strongly deprecating the conduct, the Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the alleged contemnors in view of the High Court Judge’s own magnanimity in accepting their apology, and in light of the principle that the majesty of law is best served when genuine contrition is met with forgiveness.
Summary: The suo motu contempt proceedings arose during the hearing of Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, which contained serious and unfounded allegations against a Telangana High Court Judge. Upon noticing the objectionable content, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition but declined to allow its withdrawal, issuing notices to the petitioner and the advocates involved to explain why contempt action should not be initiated. The contemnors later tendered an apology, and the Court directed them to first offer their apology before the concerned High Court Judge. After the matter was reopened for this limited purpose, the Judge accepted their apology but expressed concern over the growing trend of vilification of judges by disgruntled litigants and lawyers. The Supreme Court, while reviewing earlier authoritative precedents on advocates’ duties and professional ethics, emphasised that lawyers must exercise restraint, avoid reckless allegations, and must never priorities client instructions over their duty to the court. The Court also referred to its recent holding in N. Eswaranathan highlighting that the dignity of law is protected not merely through punishment but through acceptance of genuine remorse.
Decision: Accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner and the two advocates, the Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings while issuing a strong caution that members of the Bar must exercise utmost care before signing pleadings containing allegations against judges. The Court underscored that such conduct erodes public trust in the judiciary and will not be tolerated, but since the apology had also been accepted by the High Court Judge concerned, punitive action was deemed unnecessary. All contempt notices were discharged and the proceedings were formally closed.