The Supreme Court on Monday expressed deep concern over the growing tendency among some litigants and lawyers to level baseless and scandalous allegations against judges, particularly in instances where judicial orders are perceived as unfavourable. The apex court’s remarks came in the context of criminal contempt proceedings that were closed after unconditional apologies were tendered and accepted by the judge concerned.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran underscored that the practice of questioning judicial integrity without substantive grounds is not only reckless but also undermines the very foundations of the legal system. “We have noticed in the recent past that when orders are not favourable, scurrilous and scandalous allegations are made against the judge. Such a practice needs to be strongly deprecated,” the bench observed.

The contempt proceedings had arisen from allegations made by N. Peddi Raju and his lawyers, advocates Ritesh Patil and Nitin Meshram, against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court. The allegations were made in a petition seeking the transfer of a case concerning relief granted to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy in a matter under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners claimed that there were doubts regarding the impartiality of the judge and that their counsel was not provided adequate time to argue the case. The Supreme Court, however, condemned these claims as baseless and reckless, emphasizing that such unfounded insinuations threaten the credibility of judicial institutions.

In August 2025, the apex court had directed Raju and the two advocates to tender an unconditional apology before Justice Bhattacharya, leaving it to her discretion to accept or reject the apologies. Justice Bhattacharya accepted the apologies on August 22 and placed on record a detailed rebuttal to the allegations, firmly establishing the baseless nature of the claims. Following this acceptance, the Supreme Court on Monday decided not to pursue the contempt proceedings any further, emphasizing that the “majesty of law does not lie in punishment but in forgiving when an apology is made.”

While closing the case, the bench issued a stern reminder to members of the Bar about their professional responsibilities. Lawyers, as officers of the court, are obligated to maintain respect for judicial institutions and to exercise caution before including allegations against judges in their pleadings. The court warned that unfounded insinuations, whether made in filings or arguments, cannot be tolerated. “Lawyers must be careful before signing pleadings which make allegations against judges,” the bench observed.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing Raju in the proceedings, appeared before the Supreme Court, and the bench acknowledged that the apologies tendered had addressed the concerns adequately. The court noted that closure of the contempt proceedings in this case reflects both judicial magnanimity and the expectation that lawyers and litigants adhere to ethical and professional standards in their dealings with the courts.

Legal experts have highlighted that the case serves as a timely warning to the legal community. Over recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the frequency of allegations against judges, often framed in emotionally charged or politically motivated terms. While judicial orders may sometimes displease litigants, the Supreme Court’s observations underscore that personal attacks or accusations of bias without credible evidence are not only inappropriate but also potentially contemptuous.

The court’s emphasis on professional responsibility resonates with earlier pronouncements regarding the conduct of lawyers in India. Members of the Bar are expected to uphold the integrity of the legal system, ensuring that the administration of justice is not compromised by personal grievances or attempts to intimidate or malign judges. By formally closing the contempt proceedings while issuing a cautionary note, the Supreme Court has balanced forgiveness with vigilance, signaling that while contrition is recognized, deviations from professional standards will not be overlooked in the future.

Observers note that the implications of such rulings extend beyond the immediate parties involved. Unfounded allegations against judges can have far-reaching consequences, including undermining public confidence in the judiciary and creating an environment where judicial decisions are constantly questioned without basis. The Supreme Court’s firm stance seeks to reaffirm the principle that while judicial scrutiny is essential in a democracy, it must be exercised responsibly and grounded in fact.

The Telangana case also highlighted the procedural aspect of ensuring fairness in legal proceedings. The petitioners’ claims of inadequate time for argument were carefully examined by the Supreme Court, which found no substantive basis for asserting bias or partiality on the part of the judge. By requiring an unconditional apology, the apex court provided an opportunity for acknowledgment of error and restoration of decorum without resorting to punitive measures unnecessarily. This approach reflects the broader philosophy of the judiciary, which balances enforcement of professional standards with the principles of fairness and corrective justice.

Furthermore, the judgment reinforces the concept of judicial independence, which is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. Judges must be able to perform their duties without fear of personal attacks or unfounded allegations influencing their decision-making. By condemning the rising trend of scurrilous allegations, the Supreme Court has sought to protect not only individual judges but the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.

Legal scholars have noted that such cases underscore the need for continuous education and sensitization within the legal community about ethical practices. While litigation can be adversarial, there is a clear boundary between robust advocacy and unfounded personal attacks on judicial officers. The Supreme Court’s pronouncements serve as guidance for law firms, practicing advocates, and future legal professionals, emphasizing that respect for the judiciary is integral to the rule of law.

The closure of the contempt proceedings in the Raju case, therefore, carries dual significance. On one hand, it illustrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to accept apologies and extend forgiveness where appropriate. On the other hand, it acts as a cautionary tale, warning that similar conduct in the future will invite stricter scrutiny and possible punitive action. By striking this balance, the apex court seeks to maintain decorum in legal proceedings while reinforcing the principles of accountability and professional integrity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s response to the rising trend of scandalous allegations against judges is both timely and necessary. By condemning baseless attacks, emphasizing the duty of lawyers to uphold respect for judicial institutions, and formally closing the contempt proceedings after acceptance of apologies, the court has reinforced the fundamental principles of judicial independence and professional responsibility. This ruling serves as a clear message to litigants and legal practitioners alike: while questioning judicial orders in a lawful and reasoned manner is a hallmark of democracy, unfounded personal attacks on judges are unacceptable and will be addressed firmly. The decision not only protects the dignity of the judiciary but also strengthens public confidence in the impartial and fair functioning of India’s legal system.