Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant & Advocates For Scandalous Remarks Against HC Judge In Transfer Petition

Taking a stern view over 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against a sitting Telangana High Court Judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in a transfer petition, the Supreme Court today issued show cause notices to the petitioner, the AOR and lawyers who agreed to file the petition.  

The Court observed that it cannot permit litigants and lawyers to malign the image of sitting judges while judges make efforts to protect the lawyers from summons issued by investigating agencies

"On one hand, we are trying to protect the lawyers from misuse (of provisions by ED); we cannot permit the judges to be put in a box, and any lawyer or litigant is free to make allegations against the judge," CJI Gavai said.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a transfer petition filed by one Peddi Raju seeking the transfer of a criminal case concerning Chief Minister Revanth Reddy before the Telangana High Court. The court was displeased with the language used against the sitting High Court Judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. 

At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition. 

The CJI verbally said that as an officer of the court, it is the duty of the AOR and lawyers to be careful about the contents of the petition being filed. 

"Before signing and drafting the petition, as an officer of the court is it not your duty...we will issue notice and then see whether your apology will be accepted or not."

The bench proceeded to issue show show-cause notice against the lawyers and the Advocate on Record responsible for filing the present petition.

The order reads :

"Scurrilous and scandalous allegations are made against a sitting judge of the Telangana High Court.

"The constitution bench of this court has held that it is not only the litigant who makes such allegations but also the lawyer who subscribes his signatures and would be equally guilty of committing contempt of this Court."

"We issue notice to the N Peddi Raju, the petitioner herein as well as AOR, and Advocate Ritesh Patil and lawyers who have drawn the present petition to show cause why a contempt of court should not be initiated against them. Notice returnable on August 11."

The Court also recorded that during the proceedings, when the court objected to the language used against the High Court Judge, the counsel for the petitioner requested to withdraw the matter. The Court, without granting the liberty dismissed it. 

"When we expressed displeasure at the time of proceedings, the extent to which the language is used in the petition, the learned counsel sought the liberty to withdraw the petition. However, we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw the same. The same is dismissed."

Sr Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared from Telangana CM A. Reddy., who was the respondent in the case.

What Was The Case Before The Telangana High Court? 

The case before the Telangana High Court was filed by Chief Minister Revanth Reddy seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 2016, for allegedly commissioning vandalism at a SC community society, which eventually led to caste-based abuses. 

The case was filed by the present petitioner, N Peddi Raju. Only July 17, the High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya quashed the proceedings, noting that there is no evidence to show Reddy's presence at the site of the alleged offence.

Before the High Court, prior to the order being pronounced, the counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant made a mention stating that a transfer application had been preferred by him before the Supreme Court, with a prayer that the matter be listed before any other bench of the High Court.

The Counsel in the application had contended that the de facto complainant had not been allowed to present his case by the Bench.

After passing the order, Justice Moushumi noted that the application to transfer was preferred at the fag end of the hearing, i.e. after the matter had been reserved for orders. Further, the bench noted that there was no date showing when the transfer application was filed.

Case Details : N. PEDDI RAJU Versus ANUMULA REVANTH REDDY| T.P.(Crl.) No. 613/2025

Related - Lawyer Who Signs Petitions With Derogatory Remarks Is Guilty Of Contempt Of Court: Supreme Court