The Telangana High Court accepted the apology and disposed of contempt proceedings arising from a Transfer Petition filed before the Supreme Court. The Court held that an expression of sincere remorse has the effect of cleansing the scandalous act on the part of the alleged contemnor and that the authority of the Court stems not from retaliation or the power to penalize and punish, but the power to balance the scales of justice.
The earlier Criminal Petition disposed of on 17.07.2025 was reopened pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order dated 11.08.2025 in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2025. The reopening was limited to the consideration of affidavits of apology filed by three alleged contemnors, who appeared before the Court and were directed to place their respective affidavits on record.
The alleged Contemnor No.1 stated that he had tendered his apology to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Contempt petition (Civil) No.3 of 2025 and was tendering his apology to this court pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The alleged Contemnor No.2, stated that he regrets the use of language in the Transfer petition and claimed that it was drafted by Mr. Nitin Meshram. It was further stated in his Affidavit that although he had the occasion to go through the same, he failed to notice that it contained remarks against this Court.
With respect to Contemnor No.3, it was stated that he had appeared as counsel in the Transfer Petition and that withdrawal of the same had been sought by him but was not permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He claimed that an unconditional apology was being tendered before this Court by him and the responsibility for drafting the Transfer Petition was also accepted. He also expressed regrets for the error of judgment on his part regarding the use of language employed in the drafting of the said petition.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed that the act of hearing Lt. Counsel representing a litigant is regarded as an indispensable part of decision-making. A proper hearing given to counsel, as the representative of a litigant, was described as an expression of respect. It was further stated that while criticizing a judgment was a part of the legal process, personal attacks on a Judge on allegations of bias and collateral motives were seen as rupturing the implicit trust between the Court and the officers of the Court.
It was further held that a trend of vilifying Judges has been seen in recent times, where disgruntled lawyers and litigants demand recusal or transfer on claims of oblique motives. Such allegations were found to derail justice by creating intimidation and were considered to dent the dignity of Courts and affect public trust. It was emphasized that advocates bear greater responsibility to ensure the Court is not brought into disrepute. The Court concluded that Judgeship is never defined by the power of the Chair but is regarded as the responsibility of disseminating justice with conscience, commitment, and compassion.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sri C. Raghu, Senior Counsel representing Sri Racherla Kartik Reddy Respondents: Mr. Pale Nageshwar Rao, APP on behalf of State; Mr. D. Surananth Reddy, representing Mr. Nimma Narayana, Advocate
