Case Note & Summary
The appellant, an advocate, filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1612 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court on behalf of his client seeking a CBI investigation into his daughter's suspicious death. The matter was listed before a Division Bench including 'Justice X' on 2 April 2025. Prior to this, on 1 April 2025, the appellant held a press conference alleging that Justice X was disqualified from hearing the case because her sister was an accused in an FIR lodged by his client and was associated with a political party. Justice X brought this to the Chief Justice's attention via letter dated 4 April 2025. The Chief Justice took suo motu cognizance, constituting a five-Judge Bench, and registered Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2025. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 9 April 2025. The appellant filed Interim Application No.2005 of 2025 seeking discharge and Interim Application No.3297 of 2025 seeking impleadment of Justice X as a party-respondent. The High Court dismissed the impleadment application on 17 September 2025, holding that a person who merely furnishes information cannot be a complainant or necessary party. It also directed registration of a fresh contempt case (Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.4 of 2025) against the appellant for scandalous imputations in the application, and issued an advisory to the appellant and fifteen other advocates for professional misconduct. The appellant's subsequent application for recall (Interim Application No.3843 of 2025) was dismissed on 16 October 2025. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's orders. The Court held that impleadment of a Judge in suo motu contempt proceedings is impermissible, and filing scandalous applications constitutes fresh contempt. It also held that the High Court's advisory on professional misconduct was within its inherent powers, though disciplinary proceedings remain with the Bar Council. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and warned against abuse of process.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Suo Motu Contempt - Impleadment of Judge - A person who merely furnishes information to the Chief Justice cannot be construed as a complainant nor can such a person be regarded as a necessary or proper party in contempt proceedings - The High Court correctly dismissed the application seeking impleadment of a sitting Judge as a party-respondent - Held that the impleadment was not permissible (Paras 13, 26-27). B) Contempt of Court - Fresh Contempt - Scandalous Application - Filing of an application containing disparaging and scandalous imputations against a Judge constitutes fresh contempt - The High Court rightly directed registration of a separate suo motu criminal contempt case against the contemnor - Held that such conduct amounts to abuse of process and lowers the authority of the court (Paras 13, 26-27). C) Contempt of Court - Professional Misconduct - Jurisdiction of High Court - The High Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, can record a finding of professional misconduct against advocates who collaborate in drafting and filing scandalous applications - However, the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is vested with the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 - Held that the advisory issued to advocates was within the High Court's inherent powers to ensure proper administration of justice (Paras 14, 21, 26-27). D) Contempt of Court - Recusal - Conflict of Interest - A prayer seeking recusal of the Chief Justice and disqualification of the entire Bench on the ground of alleged conflict of interest is wholly frivolous, misconceived, and amounts to abuse of process - Held that such prayers cannot be entertained in contempt proceedings (Paras 16, 26-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contemnor can implead a sitting Judge as a party-respondent in suo motu contempt proceedings; whether filing a scandalous application against a Judge constitutes fresh contempt; whether the High Court can record a finding of professional misconduct against advocates in contempt proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's orders dated 17 September 2025 and 16 October 2025. The Court held that impleadment of a Judge in suo motu contempt proceedings is impermissible, filing scandalous applications constitutes fresh contempt, and the High Court's advisory on professional misconduct was within its inherent powers.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 19
- Section 10
- Section 15
- Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules
- 1994
- Rule 9(1)
- Rule 8
- Advocates Act
- 1961
- Judicial Independence
- Suo Motu Contempt
- Impleadment of Judge
- Professional Misconduct
- Recusal
- Abuse of Process
