False Complaints Against Judges Must Invite Contempt, Disciplinary Action Against Lawyers: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over increasing instances of false, anonymous, and engineered complaints being filed against members of the trial judiciary, warning that such actions must invite strict legal consequences, including contempt of court proceedings and disciplinary action against erring lawyers.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan observed that not only disgruntled litigants but also certain mischievous elements within the Bar have resorted to intimidatory tactics aimed at browbeating judicial officers.

The Court held that strong action in accordance with law must be taken against individuals found to have filed false or frivolous complaints against judicial officers. It said that in appropriate cases, such action should include proceedings for contempt of court.

The Bench further directed that where the person responsible for filing or engineering such complaints is a member of the Bar, the High Court should, in addition to contempt proceedings, make a reference to the Bar Council for disciplinary action. It stressed that Bar Councils must dispose of such references expeditiously.

At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that complaints against judicial officers must not be ignored if they disclose genuine misconduct. It held that where allegations are prima facie found to be true, prompt disciplinary action must follow, and no leniency should be shown if charges are established.

The Court also underscored that in cases where criminal prosecution of a judicial officer is warranted, the High Court should not hesitate to initiate such proceedings. It said this is necessary to preserve public confidence in the justice delivery system and to weed out errant elements within the judiciary.

The observations were made while allowing an appeal filed by senior judicial officer Nirbhay Singh Suliya, whose removal from service had been ordered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of removal as well as the orders of the appellate authority and the High Court.

The appellant had been removed from service after 27 years of unblemished judicial service, solely on the basis of four bail orders passed by him. The High Court had taken the view that in these four cases, the appellant failed to expressly refer to Section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, which prescribes twin conditions for grant of bail.

The Supreme Court noted that in 14 other bail orders passed by the appellant, he had expressly referred to the said provision, indicating that he was fully conscious of the statutory requirements. The Court found that the inference of misconduct was drawn merely because the statutory provision was not expressly mentioned in four orders, without any supporting material to suggest extraneous considerations.

The Bench held that mere errors of judgment or incorrect orders cannot, by themselves, form the basis for disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against a judicial officer. It reiterated that each case must turn on its own facts and that no absolute rule can be laid down.

The Court found that there was no material on record to indicate that the bail orders were actuated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. It noted that the prosecution had accepted all 18 bail orders and had not challenged them before higher courts. The public prosecutor who appeared in those cases also deposed that the State had not objected to the grant of bail.

The Supreme Court further observed that the original complaint appeared to be primarily directed against the stenographer, who had been posted at the concerned station even before the appellant assumed charge.

Emphasising the importance of judicial independence, the Court observed that a fearless trial judge is essential to the rule of law. It noted that trial judges operate under immense workload and pressure, often deciding large numbers of cases daily, and disgruntled litigants may attempt to settle scores by levelling baseless allegations.

Holding the inquiry findings to be perverse and unsupported by evidence, the Court concluded that the High Court erred in upholding the appellant’s removal.

Granting relief, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant be deemed to have continued in service until reaching the age of superannuation. It ordered payment of full back wages with all consequential benefits, along with interest at the rate of six percent, to be released within eight weeks.

Case Title: Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan

Date: 5th January, 2026