The Supreme Court issued show cause notices for contempt of court to litigant petitioner, his Advocate-on-Record, and the drafting lawyers following the filing of a transfer petition that contained “scurrilous allegations” against a sitting judge of the Telangana High Court, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.
The case arose against the backdrop of Telangana High Court’s recent quashing of criminal charges against Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy (respondent) under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The transfer petition sought to move this case out of the Telangana High Court, but also included serious allegations casting doubts on the conduct and impartiality of Justice Bhattacharya, who had pronounced the order.
The Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran took strong exception to the language and content of the transfer petition, holding that both the litigant and the lawyers who drafted and signed the petition may be equally liable for contempt of court. The Court also remarked that they cannot permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge, and emphasized the special duty of lawyers as officers of the court to exercise caution before associating with or presenting such pleadings. The Bench observed that making scandalous allegations against a sitting judge strikes at the heart of the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.
Efforts by the petitioner’s lawyers to withdraw the petition and apologize were summarily rejected. The Chief Justice stated that an apology would only be considered if it was genuine and forthcoming, but the mere attempt to withdraw the petition could not cure the gravity of the misconduct. The Court recorded in its order that both the client and lawyers are to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, with notices returnable on 11 August 2025.
The Bench also observed that while courts act to protect advocates from misuse of investigative powers, they will not allow any litigant or lawyer to make unfounded allegations that malign judicial officers.
For the Petitioners: AoR Ritesh Patil
For the Respondents: Sr Adv. Siddharth Luthra