The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a lawyer’s primary duty is to the court, not the client, especially when allegations scandalize the judiciary. Signing pleadings with unverified, scurrilous remarks against judges constitutes contempt. The Court emphasized that such actions, even under client instruction, violate professional ethics and the majesty of law.
Facts Of The Case:
In Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, the petitioner, N. Peddi Raju, sought to transfer his case, Criminal Petition No. 4162 of 2020, from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench. The primary grounds for this request were allegations of bias and procedural discrimination against the learned Single Judge hearing the matter. The petitioner specifically contended that his arguments were summarily curtailed, and he was given only five minutes to plead his case. Further, the transfer petition contained scandalous remarks, implying that due to the political status of Respondent No. 1, who allegedly led the executive control in the state, there was a likelihood of justice being derailed. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition but took serious exception to the scurrilous allegations made against the High Court judge. Consequently, it initiated suo motu contempt proceedings not only against the petitioner (Alleged Contemnor No. 1) but also against the Advocate-on-Record and the counsel who drafted the petition (Alleged Contemnors No. 2 & 3) for scandalizing the court and undermining the administration of justice.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with the filing of Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, seeking the transfer of a criminal petition from the Telangana High Court. Upon dismissal of the transfer plea on July 29, 2025, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the scandalous averments made against the High Court judge within the petition. It issued show-cause notices to the petitioner and his two lawyers for why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. In response, all three alleged contemnors filed affidavits apologizing to the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments, the Court, in its judgement dated August 11, 2025, permitted the contemnors to tender an unconditional apology directly to the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court and directed the Registrar to reopen the disposed-of criminal case solely for that limited purpose.
READ ALSO:Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
Court Observation:
The Court made several critical observations, emphasizing that a lawyer’s paramount duty is to the court, which supersedes any duty to the client, especially when allegations scandalize the judiciary. It strongly condemned the growing trend of baselessly criticizing judges and seeking transfers based solely on a party’s political status, stating such practices undermine the entire justice system. The Bench firmly asserted that High Court judges are constitutional functionaries who enjoy the same immunity as Supreme Court judges and that it is the Supreme Court’s duty to protect them from scurrilous attacks. It noted that an apology for such actions must primarily be offered to the scandalized judge of the High Court, not just the Supreme Court. Guided by the principle that the law’s majesty lies in forgiveness for acknowledged mistakes, the Court allowed the contemnors an opportunity to tender an unconditional apology directly to the High Court judge.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, while holding the alleged contemnors prima facie guilty of contempt for scandalizing the judiciary, did not impose immediate punishment. Instead, the final decision permitted the petitioner and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology directly to the learned Single Judge of the Telangana High Court, before whom the scandalous remarks were made. The Court directed the Registrar General to reopen the disposed-of criminal petition solely for this limited purpose. The contemnors were given one week to apologize after the case’s reopening, and the High Court judge was tasked with deciding on the apology’s acceptance within a subsequent week. The Supreme Court reserved its final decision on accepting the apology tendered to it, stating it would be guided by the outcome of the proceedings before the High Court and the principle that the law’s majesty lies in forgiveness. The matter was listed for review after four weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: In Re: N. Peddi Raju And Others Citation: 2025 INSC 989 Case Number:Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 11, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Download The Judgement Here