The Madhya Pradesh High Court has accepted the unconditional apology of BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak who was accused of contacting a Judge in connection with an illegal mining case. The High Court held that no one who is directly or indirectly connected with any case should make any attempt to meet, call or message the Judge who is hearing or about to hear such case.

The High Court accepted the unconditional apology with the warning to the contemnor not to repeat this conduct in future.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held, “Therefore, the allegation against the contemnor, which is established, is only of attempting to contact a High Court judge. However, the contemnor has not disputed or challenged the fact recorded in the order dated 1.9.2025; rather, he has admitted his mistake in this reference. No one who is directly or indirectly connected with any case should make any attempt to meet, call or message the judge who is hearing or about to hear such case. Hence, the act of making call and sending a message by the contemnor comes under the definition of criminal contempt.”


“...we put a note of caution that a contemnor, who is Member of legislation, is expected not to repeat such an act and should be careful in future. Hence, we hereby accept unconditional apology with the warning to the contemnor not to repeat this conduct in future”, it ordered.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to conclude the enquiry in relation to a complaint in accordance with the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. (2014) and if upon conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, the information disclosed in the petitioner's complaint was found to reveal the commission of cognizable offense, the respondent authorities were to register an FIR. Allegations were raised that three companies owned by the contemnor were involved in illegal mining and caused a loss of Rs 1,200 crore to the State Government (Rs. 1,000 crores + 18% GST). According to the petitioner, the Economic Offences Wing had forwarded the complaint to the mining department. The mining department had constituted a committee.

In the said writ petition, Sanjay Satyendra Pathak (contemnor) was not pleaded as respondent. The said writ petition came up for hearing and the Single Judge stated that Pathak had made an attempt to call him to have a discussion regarding the particular matter. It was ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for listing the matter before the appropriate Bench. Ashutosh Dixit filed another Writ Petition seeking direction to the second respondent/ Madhya Pradesh High Court to take judicial cognisance of the attempt made by the contemnor. The Division Bench had disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the Registry to register a suo motu criminal contempt petition against the contemnor.

Meanwhile, the contemnor submitted an affidavit containing an unconditional apology to the Court as well as to the Single Judge. According to the contemnor, on or around August 30, 2025, the call was mistakenly made to the Judge and, realising the same, it was immediately disconnected, and thereafter, out of courtesy, an introductory message was sent. The contemnor expressed unqualified regret and remorse for the missed call made mistakenly. According to the contemnor, he had shown deepest regard and reverence for the judicial institutions and could never intend to interfere with or influence any administration of justice.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides punishment for contempt of court. Under sub-section (1), for a contempt of court one may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. “As per the proviso, the contemnor may be discharged, or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. As per the explanation, the apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional and if the accused makes it bona fide”, it added.

The Bench took note of the fact that the allegation against the contemnor, which was established, was only of attempting to contact a High Court judge. “The contemnor should be punished or fined, or both, or his unconditional apology is liable to be accepted. We are satisfied that the contempt is not of such a nature that it did substantially interfere with the due course of justice; Vide order dated 6.4.2026, this Court has already permitted him to submit an unconditional apology. Hence, we are inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by him”, it held.

Cause Title: In Reference (Suo Motu Contempt) v. Shri Sanjay Satyendra Pathak (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540)

Appearance

Respondent: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Anil Khare, Advocates Siddharth Shukla, Advocates Shamila Iram Fatima

Intervenor: Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat, Advocate Aryan Urmaliya

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: