Personal Attacks Antithetical To Independent Judges; Advocates’ Responsibility To Ensure That Court Is Not Brought To Disrepute: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court was considering the Affidavits of Apology tendered by the three alleged Contemnors.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Telangana High Court
While accepting the apology of three alleged contemnors including two lawyers in a matter relating to transfer of a case, the Telangana High Court has held that personal attacks on Judges is antithetical to independent judges and the Advocates, as equal participants in the quest for justice, have a greater responsibility in ensuring that the Court is not brought to disrepute.
The High Court was considering the Affidavits of Apology tendered by the alleged Contemnors.
Highlighting the recent trend of vilifying Judges, the Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya asserted, “Personal attacks on Judges breach the safety-net of impartial decision-making and is antithetical to independent judges. Targetting of Judges makes for skeptical and unsure Judges.”
“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”, it added.
Factual Background
The Criminal Petition which was disposed of by the High Court was reopened pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court presided over by the Chief Justice of India. The alleged Contcmnors were directed to file their respective Affidavits for Apology. The judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned the grounds on which the Criminal petition was sought to be transferred from the High Court. The grounds stated were of a serious apprehension of partiality and procedural discrimination since the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Supreme Court (second respondent in the Criminal Petition) was summarily curtailed. The petitioner/second respondent complained that he was given only five minutes to argue the matter.
It was also stated in the judgment that the petitioner/alleged Contemnor believed that there existed a likelihood of derailment of justice. The first contemnor tendered his apology to the High Court. The second contemnor regretted the use of language in the Transfer Petition. The third contemnor tendered his unconditional apology to the Court, accepted responsibility for drafting the Transfer Petition and expressed regret for the error of judgment on his part on the use of language employed in the drafting of the said petition.
Reasoning
Since the Supreme Court had comprehensively considered the issues raised in the Transfer petition, the High Court only intended to record that the allegation of the first alleged Contemnor not being given a proper hearing was contrary to the records.
The Bench stated that the act of hearing counsel representing a litigant is an indispensable part of decision-making. “The ongoing dialogue dissipates boundaries between the Bar and the Bench and merges into a common quest for justice. 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. While criticizing a judgment is part of the legal process, personal attacks on a Judge on allegations of bias and collateral motives rupture the implicit trust between the Court and the officers of the Court”, it further asserted.
“As an end-note, Judgeship is never about the power of the Chair but is always about the responsibility of disseminating justice with conscience, commitment and compassion. The common man should repose full faith and confidence on the Courts. Fortunately, notwithstanding the occasional stresses and strains, Courts continue to be the proud flag-bearers of justice”, the order read.
The Bench thus accepted the apology tendered by the three alleged Contemnors and directed the matter to be placed before the Apex Court.
Cause Title: Anumula Revanth Reddy v. The State Of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025:TSHC:24469)