Telangana High Court Deprecates 'One-Sided Mud Slinging' By Lawyers, Litigants; Says Judges Can't Present Their Side Of Story

The Telangana High Court has accepted the apology tendered by three persons including two lawyers, who had sought to transfer a matter listed before a single judge alleging bias and non-hearing of the petitioner's counsel. 

While accepting the apologies, the high court, remarked upon casting of aspersions against a judge when the latter does not have a platform to present their side of the story, adding that attacks on Judges irrevocably dents the dignity of Courts.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya passed the order while considering the Affidavits of Apology tendered by the three alleged Contemnors–N. Peddi Raju, and lawyers Ritesh Patil and Nitin Meshram. The judge in her order also remarked upon the "trend of villifying judges" which has emerged in recent times. 

For context, the Supreme Court had on August 11 directed the lawyers involved in filing a transfer petition with 'scurrilous and scandalous' remarks against Justice Bhattacharya, to place their unconditional apology before her within one week.

The apex court had passed the order while hearing suo-motu contempt proceedings initiated against lawyers who had agreed to file a transfer petition containing such remarks. The Counsel had tendered their unconditional apology before the Supreme Court, pursuant to which the apex court had directed the High Court's Registrar General to reopen the matter before Justice Bhattacharya asking her to decide on the issue of acceptance of the apology within one week.

The high court in its order said:

"The attackers also forget that while casting and circulating aspersions in print or on social media can be done by the flick of a key, the concerned Judge does not have a platform to present his/her side of the story. One-sided mud-slinging, more often than not, swings right back to besmirch the attacker. The 'Majesty' of a Court is an inalienable part of the respect associated with upholding of the Rule of Law. Attacks on Judges irrevocably dent the dignity of Courts as impartial arbiters of justice and affects public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Advocates, as equal participants in the quest for justice, have a greater responsibility in ensuring that the Court is not brought to disrepute."

Justice Bhattacharya further expressed her "utmost respect" for the Supreme Court's judgment in the matter. The high court also recorded that the allegation of the alleged Contemnor No.1 of not being given a proper hearing is contrary to the records.

The court further said that after a decision is pronounced, an aggrieved party has the right to seek recall or review of the judgment or challenge it before a higher forum. It also said that while a court can choose to accept or reject an apology, it is important to bear in mind that Court's authority stems not from retaliation or the power to penalize and punish, but the power to balance the scales of justice.

Remarking on the vilification of judges, the high court said:

"A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demand release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge. Such reckless allegations derail the course of justice by creating an environment of intimidation which is not conduciveto the effective administration of justice. Personal attacks on Judges breach the safety net of impartial decision-making and is antithetical to independent judges'. Targeting of Judges makes forsceptical and unsure judges." 

Accepting the apologies, the high court said that the matter be placed before the Supreme Court, as directed in its August 11 judgment.

"This Court remains grateful and indebted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India," the order notes. 

That original matter petained to a quashing petition moved by Chief Minister Revanth Reddy booked under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 2016 for allegedly commissioning vandalism at a SC community society which eventually lead to caste-based abuses. The high court had in July quashed the criminal proceedings.

Case No: CrlP 4162 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order