Can lawyers be held in contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges, and does an unconditional apology suffice to close contempt proceedings?

LawSikho
November 16, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	SMC(C) No.-000003-000003 – 2025
Diary Number	43852/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bench	HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Precedent Value	Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms existing precedent
Type of Law	Civil Contempt / Inherent Jurisdiction
Questions of Law	Whether signing pleadings containing scandalous allegations against a judge constitutes contempt. Whether an unconditional apology—first tendered to the offended judge—can close civil contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi	The Supreme Court held that lawyers, as officers of the court, owe an overriding duty to preserve judicial majesty and must not subscribe to pleadings that scandalize or intimidate judges without prima facie grounds. Scurrilous allegations against a sitting judge amount to civil contempt. An unconditional apology, first addressed to the offended judge and accepted, suffices to close proceedings, while serving as a cautionary precedent.
Judgments Relied Upon	M.Y. Shareef and Another v. Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Others, (1954) 2 SCC 444 T.V. Choudhary, A Member of the Indian Administrative Service (Under Suspension) (1987) 3 SCC 258 Rondel v. Worsley, (1967) 3 All ER 993 N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Misc. Appl. No.1264/2025
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Duty of counsel to reconcile client interests with officer-of-the-court obligations Judicial majesty and public confidence in impartial tribunals Shareef’s requirement of prima facie satisfaction before scandalizing court Rondel’s articulation of conflicting duties of counsel and primacy of duty to the court
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Lawyers filed a Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.613/2025 containing scurrilous allegations against a sitting High Court judge. The Supreme Court refused withdrawal, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, and issued show-cause notices. An apology affidavit was tendered; the SC directed it first to the offended judge in the High Court, who accepted it. The SC then closed the contempt.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All courts and legal officers in India
Follows	M.Y. Shareef v. Judges of High Court of Nagpur (1954); Rondel v. Worsley; T.V. Choudhary (1987); N. Eswaranathan (2025)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that subscribing to pleadings with scandalous allegations against a judge without prima facie basis is civil contempt.
Confirms that an unconditional apology accepted by the offended judge ends the contempt proceeding.
Establishes that apology must be tendered first to the judge against whom allegations were made, by reopening the disposed file for that limited purpose.
Emphasises officers-of-the-court duty: duty to court overrides client instructions to accuse judges.
Cautions lawyers to refrain from reckless allegations injurious to judicial independence and public confidence.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Identification of contempt
- Noticed scurrilous allegations in a Transfer Petition against a sitting High Court judge.
- SC refused withdrawal and issued suo motu contempt show-cause notices to the lawyers.
Procedure for apology
- Apology affidavit tendered to SC; SC directed apology first to the offended judge by reopening the closed High Court file.
- High Court judge accepted the unconditional apology.
Reaffirmation of precedents
- Cited M.Y. Shareef: counsel guilty of contempt when signing scandalizing pleadings without prima facie grounds.
- Relied on Rondel v. Worsley and T.V. Choudhary for barristers’ overriding duty to court.
Closure on mercy and caution
- Noted N. Eswaranathan: majesty lies in forgiving those who acknowledge mistakes.
- Accepted apology with a caution that lawyers must be vigilant in pleadings that may scandalize the judiciary.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Sought liberty to withdraw the Transfer Petition once the Court expressed displeasure at the language used.
Tendered an unconditional apology affidavit to the Supreme Court.
Requested permission to approach the High Court judge directly for an apology.

Respondent

Refused withdrawal of petition to ensure accountability.
Directed show-cause notices and structured the apology process to preserve judicial dignity.
Accepted apology only after the offended judge’s acceptance.

Factual Background

Three lawyers filed Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.613/2025 in the Supreme Court making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting High Court judge of Telangana. The Supreme Court refused to allow withdrawal of that petition, initiated suo motu civil contempt proceedings, and issued show-cause notices. An apology was offered before the Supreme Court, but the Court directed that it be tendered first to the judge concerned in the Telangana High Court. The High Court judge reopened the disposed criminal petition file, accepted the unconditional apology, and the Supreme Court thereafter accepted it and closed the proceedings.

Statutory Analysis

The Supreme Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution to initiate civil contempt proceedings.
No specific statutory provision was invoked beyond the court’s inherent power to punish contempt and preserve the majesty and impartiality of the judiciary.
The procedure of reopening a disposed file solely for the purpose of apology aligns with inherent powers rather than any CrPC provision.

Procedural Innovations

Reopening of a disposed criminal petition file strictly for tendering an apology to the offended judge.
Structured procedure: apology affidavit to SC → direction for apology to High Court judge → acceptance by High Court judge → closure by Supreme Court.

Alert Indicators

Precedent Followed