Contacting Judge Is Contempt: MP High Court Accepts MLA Sanjay Pathak's Apology

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has accepted the unconditional apology of BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak in a suo motu criminal contempt case arising from his attempt to contact a judge hearing a matter connected to allegations against companies linked to him.

While holding that the legislator's conduct amounted to criminal contempt, the Division Bench observed that any attempt by a litigant or interested person to call, message or meet a judge hearing a case strikes at judicial independence, though it concluded that the incident did not substantially interfere with the administration of justice.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal passed the order while deciding the suo motu criminal contempt reference registered against Pathak. The Court ultimately accepted his apology, but warned him against repeating such conduct in future.

The contempt proceedings originated after a Single Judge, while hearing a writ petition in September 2025 concerning allegations of illegal mining and a request for registration of an FIR, recorded in the judicial order that, "Mr. Sanjay Pathak has made an attempt to call me to have discussion regarding this particular matter." The Judge thereafter recused from hearing the case and directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.

Subsequently, another writ petition sought judicial action over the alleged attempt to contact the Judge. Acting on that plea, the High Court directed its Registry to register a suo motu criminal contempt case against Pathak.

During the proceedings, Pathak filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. He claimed the call had been made by mistake, was disconnected immediately without any conversation, and was followed only by an introductory message sent out of courtesy. He expressed regret and said he never intended to influence judicial proceedings.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the respondent along with Advocate Siddharth Shukla, and Senior Advocate Anil Khare assisted by Advocate Shamila Iram Fatima, urged the Court to accept the apology, relying on Supreme Court precedents recognising genuine apologies in contempt matters. Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat, appearing for the intervenor with Advocate Aryan Urmaliya, argued that the very attempt to contact the Judge attracted criminal contempt.

Referring to Sections 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Bench noted that criminal contempt includes acts which prejudice, interfere with, or tend to interfere with judicial proceedings or obstruct the administration of justice. It discussed Sections 12 and 13, observing that while contempt may attract imprisonment or fine, the law permits courts to discharge a contemnor if an apology satisfies the court.

The judges emphasised that punishment cannot be imposed unless the contempt substantially interfered with the due course of justice. Applying these provisions, the Bench concluded that although Pathak's conduct crossed the line by attempting to establish contact with the Judge, the circumstances did not warrant punitive action because there was no conversation, the apology was unconditional, and the Court considered it genuine. Nevertheless, it stressed that such conduct can never be treated casually because public confidence depends upon judges deciding cases free from direct or indirect communication by interested parties.

The Bench observed, "No one who is directly or indirectly connected with any case should make any attempt to meet, call or message the judge who is hearing or about to hear such case." It further held, "Hence, the act of making call and sending a message by the contemnor comes under the definition of criminal contempt."

However, the Court found that the conduct did not substantially interfere with the due course of justice, making acceptance of the apology appropriate. Accepting the apology, the Bench cautioned that Pathak, being "a Member of legislation," was expected not to repeat such conduct and should remain careful in future. The contempt reference was accordingly closed with a warning instead of punishment.

Case Title: In Reference (Suo Motu Contempt) v. Shri Sanjay Satyendra Pathak

Date of Order: July 22, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal