In this suo moto contempt proceeding, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the growing trend of lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings. Reaffirming that an advocate’s overriding duty is to the court as its officer, the Court cautioned that subscribing to such pleadings amounts to contempt. However, accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, it closed the proceedings.
Facts Of The Case:
In a criminal transfer petition (TP(Crl.) No. 613 of 2025) filed before the Supreme Court, the pleadings contained scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of the Telangana High Court. When the bench expressed its displeasure, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition. The Court, however, refused permission to withdraw and instead dismissed the petition. Taking serious note of the scandalous content, the Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the petitioner, Mr. N. Peddi Raju, the Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Ritesh Patil, and the drafting counsel, Mr. Nitin Meshram. The Court issued them notices to show cause. When the matter was heard, the alleged contemnors tendered an affidavit of apology. The Supreme Court directed that the apology should first be tendered unconditionally before the very High Court Judge against whom the allegations were made. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the reopening of the disposed-of criminal petition before the High Court solely for this limited purpose. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the apology in an order dated 22.08.2025, which also contained strong observations on the emerging trend of vilifying judges. The Supreme Court, considering the High Court Judge’s magnanimity in accepting the apology and acknowledging the contemnors’ remorse, proceeded to accept their unconditional apology as well, while issuing a stern caution to lawyers about their duties as officers of the court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case originates with the filing of Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025 before the Supreme Court. Upon taking suo moto cognizance of the scandalous allegations within the petition, the Court dismissed the transfer petition on 29.07.2025 but refused to allow its withdrawal. Simultaneously, it initiated contempt proceedings and issued show-cause notices to the alleged contemnors. The matter was listed on 11.08.2025, where the Court directed that unconditional apologies be first tendered before the concerned High Court Judge. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to reopen the disposed criminal petition (Cri. P. No. 4162 of 2020) solely for this limited purpose. Following the acceptance of the apology by the High Court Single Judge in an order dated 22.08.2025, the matter returned to the Supreme Court, which culminated in the final judgment on 10.11.2025 accepting the apology and closing the contempt proceedings.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts
Court Observation:
The Court made strong observations condemning the growing trend of lawyers making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against judges in pleadings when dissatisfied with orders. It emphasized that an advocate’s primary and overriding duty is to the court as an officer of the judiciary, which supersedes the duty to the client. Citing landmark precedents like M.Y. Shareef and Rondel v. Worsley, the Court reiterated that lending one’s signature to pleadings containing unsubstantiated allegations aimed at scandalizing the court or delaying justice itself constitutes contempt. It noted that such attacks irrevocably damage the dignity of courts and public confidence in the judiciary. While accepting the unconditional apology tendered before the concerned High Court Judge, the Court issued a stern caution to the legal profession, underscoring the grave responsibility lawyers bear in upholding the majesty of law and maintaining mutual respect between the bar and the bench.
Final Decision & Judgement:
In its final judgment dated 10th November 2025, the Supreme Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the alleged contemnors—the petitioner and his lawyers. The Court exercised judicial magnanimity, influenced significantly by the fact that the High Court Judge, against whom the scandalous allegations were originally made, had already accepted their apology. Consequently, the initiated suo moto civil contempt proceedings were closed. However, the Court coupled this decision with a stern and explicit caution. It warned advocates, as officers of the court, to exercise utmost care and responsibility when subscribing their signatures to pleadings, especially those containing allegations against judges, reaffirming that such conduct would be viewed seriously in the future to preserve the dignity and majesty of the judiciary.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: N. Peddi Raju And Others Citation: 2025 INSC 1321 Case Number: Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2025 Date of Judgment: November 10, 2025 Judges/Justices Name: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here