New Delhi, November 10, 2025: The Supreme Court of India has expressed deep concern over a growing and disturbing trend of litigants and lawyers making scandalous and unfounded allegations against judges whenever court rulings are not in their favour. The top court emphasized that such actions undermine public trust in the judiciary and compromise the integrity and dignity of the legal system.

Context of the Case

The remarks came while a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandranconcluded contempt proceedings against N Peddi Raju, a litigant, and his two lawyers. The bench noted that the errant parties had tendered an apology, which was accepted by the relevant Telangana High Court judge, bringing the matter to a close.

The case arose from a transfer petition filed by Raju, in which he alleged bias and impropriety on the part of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court. Justice Bhattacharya had earlier quashed a criminal case filed under the SC/ST Act against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. Following the quashing, Raju and his lawyers made derogatory and unfounded allegations against the high court judge, claiming judicial misconduct.

Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court bench, while closing the proceedings, warned against such practices, stating that they not only erode public faith in the judiciary but also threaten the sanctity of legal institutions.

“In the recent past, we have noticed a growing trend of making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a judge when they don’t pass favourable orders. Such a practice needs to be strongly deprecated,” the CJI noted.

The bench underscored that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to uphold the dignity and integrity of the judicial process. It reminded legal professionals to exercise caution before signing petitions containing scandalous allegations against judges of any High Court or the Supreme Court.

“Lawyers, being officers of the court, must be careful before signing pleadings that make allegations against judges of this court or any High Court. With this, the apology is accepted and the contempt proceedings stand closed,” the bench observed.

The court further emphasized that the majesty of law lies not in punishment but in forgiveness when a genuine apology is made, highlighting the importance of maintaining professional and respectful conduct within the legal system.

Legal Precedents and Historical Context

The bench referred to a 1954 Constitution bench verdict, which had clearly established that both litigants and lawyers are equally responsible for scandalous allegations against judges. This principle reinforces the judiciary’s stance that legal representatives must ensure that their petitions are factually accurate and devoid of defamatory content.

The Supreme Court also reminded that High Court judges are in no way inferior to Supreme Court judges, reiterating that any unfounded allegations against them are not only inappropriate but also constitute contempt of court. In this instance, the Telangana High Court registrar general was directed to reopen the case before the concerned judge so that the unconditional apology could be formally recorded.

Broader Implications

The Supreme Court’s cautionary remarks highlight a wider issue plaguing the judicial system in India—the tendency among some litigants and their legal representatives to resort to personal attacks against judges in response to unfavourable rulings. Such allegations, even if unsubstantiated, threaten public confidence in impartial justice and can potentially influence or intimidate the judiciary.

Experts note that in recent years, there has been an uptick in social media and public campaigns targeting judges, often fueled by misinformation or perceived grievances. By reiterating that lawyers are officers of the court, the Supreme Court aims to curb this trend and ensure that legal professionals maintain professional decorum and integrity in all proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations serve as a strong warning to litigants and lawyers: the judiciary’s authority and credibility must not be undermined by scurrilous allegations, and due process, respect, and accountability remain the cornerstones of India’s legal system. By accepting the apology in this case, the court demonstrated its willingness to forgive when accountability is acknowledged, while simultaneously stressing the serious consequences of undermining judicial authority.

This case underscores the need for both litigants and legal professionals to exercise restraint, respect judicial processes, and uphold the dignity of the courts, ensuring that public faith in India’s judiciary remains unshaken.

---