"Majesty of law lies in forgiving", SC closes contempt case against lawyer, AOR for allegations on Telangana HC judge

A CJI led bench of the Supreme Court today closed the contempt case initiated against litigant and lawyer who had filed a petition with scandalous remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court judge.

Court was informed today that an apology was submitted before the judge concerned who accepted the same.

Highlighting the growing trend of making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a judge when they don't pass favorable orders, the bench also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran noted in its order, "Such a practice needs to be strongly deprecated. Majesty of law does not lie in punishment but forgiving when apology is made. Since the High Court judge has accepted the apology we do not intend to proceed further. With this apology is accepted and the contempt plea is closed."

However, the bench added that lawyers as officers of court will be careful before signing pleadings which make allegations against judges of this court.

Supreme Court had in August directed the litigant and lawyer who to apologize to the judge concerned. In a transfer petition, scandalous allegations were made against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya for quashing an SC/ST Act case against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy. "We direct the Registrar General of High Court to reopen the matter before the learned judge. Respondent to tender the same apology to the judge within a period of 1 week of reopening, the judge is to consider the issue of acceptance of apology within a period of 1 week.", a CJI Gavai led bench had ordered.

As the advocate concerned had tendered an unconditional apology, the bench had directed, "We have no adversarial control over the judges of High Courts..As the remarks were against the High Court judge, it would be more appropriate to tender the apology to the High Court judge. We permit the Lawyer, AOR to tender the unconditional apology before the High Court". The bench had further noted that it has become a trend nowadays amongst lawyers to criticize judges of High Court and Trial Courts for no reason.

In July, CJI BR Gavai-led bench issued show cause notices to the petitioner Peddi Raju and his lawyers, asking them why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for their allegations against Telangana High Court judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. As the counsel sought to withdraw the petition, court dismissed his request. "This has happened for the first time..never happened in my life..", the counsel further submitted before the bench. Court then asked the litigant to file an apology and said that it would consider whether the apology was genuine or not.

Before the Supreme Court, a transfer petition was filed to transfer a case against the Telangana Chief Minister under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court judge had quashed a case registered against Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for offences under sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was held that no congnizable offence or offence of any kind was disclosed against Reddy in the Charge Sheet for the Court to permit the investigation to go on in the Sessions Case.

The dispute in the case was with regard to the possession of land, which the High Court held was the subject matter of a civil dispute between parties. "Any act of dispossession of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste would per se not amount to an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless the person/victim is abused, intimidated or harassed solely on the ground that he/she belongs to a Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe", the High Court held.

The High Court judge was also informed by the complainant that the instant transfer petition before the Supreme Court sought transfer of the Criminal Petition to any other Court. In this regard the High Court judge had noted in the judgement, "It may also be noted that although the matter was heard on several occasions by this Bench after its assignment from 25.04.2025 onwards, no submission was made on behalf of the respondent No.2 indicating any intention to seek a transfer the matter or that any application was being filed for that purpose before the Supreme Court...".

Case Title: In re: N. Peddi Raju

Hearing Date: November 10, 2025

Bench: CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran