The Supreme Court of India emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a solemn responsibility to the judiciary and must refrain from endorsing or filing petitions containing scandalous, defamatory, or baseless allegations against judges. The apex court expressed serious concern over what it described as a "growing and disturbing trend" where litigants and lawyers resort to making malicious or scurrilous accusations against members of the judiciary when judgments are not in their favor.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made these remarks while concluding contempt proceedings against a litigant, N. Peddi Raju, and two of his lawyers. The court noted that such actions, if left unchecked, threaten the integrity of the judicial system and must be unequivocally condemned. The proceedings were closed after a judge of the Telangana High Court accepted the apologies tendered by Raju and the two lawyers.
The bench stated that, in recent times, there has been an alarming pattern of individuals making unsubstantiated and offensive remarks against judges whenever a court’s decision is unfavorable to them. The CJI observed that such conduct is detrimental to the dignity of the courts and the administration of justice and must be firmly discouraged.
Reiterating the ethical duty of lawyers, the court remarked that as officers of the court, advocates are expected to exercise caution and restraint before signing any pleading that contains allegations against members of the judiciary, whether of the Supreme Court or any High Court. The order clarified that, while the court accepted the apologies and closed the contempt matter, it did so with a reminder that the true majesty of law lies not in punishment but in forgiveness when a sincere apology is offered. Since the High Court judge concerned had accepted the apology, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate not to pursue the case further.
The controversy stemmed from remarks made by litigant N. Peddi Raju and his lawyers against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court. The allegations emerged during a transfer petition filed by Raju, in which he accused the judge of bias and misconduct after she had quashed a criminal case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.
The Supreme Court bench observed that such baseless attacks not only tarnish the image of the judiciary but also undermine public trust in the fairness and independence of the courts. It warned that lawyers, in particular, bear an added responsibility to protect the sanctity of judicial proceedings rather than contribute to their defamation.
Earlier, on August 11, the same bench had observed that judges of High Courts are “in no way inferior” to those serving in the Supreme Court and had directed Raju and his lawyers to issue an unconditional apology to the High Court judge they had defamed. On July 29, the CJI-led bench had already dismissed their petition, but simultaneously took note of the disparaging remarks made against the judge and issued a notice to the advocate on record representing Raju.
In its order, the bench also referred to a 1954 Constitution Bench judgment, which had established that responsibility for filing scandalous petitions rests not only with the litigants but also with the lawyers who endorse or sign them. The court reaffirmed that advocates are equally accountable for maintaining decorum and respect toward the judiciary.
Finally, the Supreme Court directed that the apology be presented directly before the concerned High Court judge. The Registrar General of the Telangana High Court was instructed to reopen the matter before that judge, who would have the authority to pass the final order. The Supreme Court concluded by reiterating that respect for the judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and any attempt to malign its officers must be met with strong judicial disapproval.
