- Supreme Court directed litigant and lawyers to apologise unconditionally to Telangana HC judge
- High court judges have same immunity and status as Supreme Court judges under the Constitution
- SC noted contemptuous nature of allegations against HC judges and refused to condone them
Observing high court judges were "in no way inferior" to the ones in the top court, the Supreme Court on Monday directed a litigant and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology to a Telangana High Court judge against whom they levelled "scurrilous allegations".
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar said, "We have noticed that nowadays it has become a trend amongst the lawyers to criticise the judges of the high courts and trial courts for no reason. It has also become a trend that whenever a political figure is involved in state, it is perceived that the petitioner has not got justice and seeks transfer... The judges of the HC enjoy the same immunity as judges of the Supreme Court." The bench noted under the constitutional scheme, high court judges were "in no way inferior" to judges in the Supreme Court.
"Though judges of the Supreme Court can modify the decisions of the judges of high courts, it has no administrative control over the judges of the high court," the court said.
The bench was hearing a suo motu contempt plea when it further said allegations against high court judges were contemptuous and could not be condoned.
The remarks also assume significance in the backdrop of the recent fiasco over an Allahabad High Court's decision in a civil case.
Following the CJI's intervention, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 8 deleted its observations criticising the Allahabad High Court judge who allowed criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case.
The case at hand related to a transfer petition filed by N Peddi Raju, alleging bias and impropriety against the high court judge who quashed a criminal case under the SC/ST Act against Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy.
The CJI-led bench on July 29 dismissed the petition but took note of the "scurrilous remarks against the high court judge" and issued notice to the advocate on record, lawyers for Raju.
The CJI referred to a 1954 Constitution bench verdict which it said had underscored not only litigants, but also the lawyers signing the petitions on such scandalous petitions were equally responsible.
"The allegations are against the High Court judge, it would be more appropriate to tender the apology to the High Court judge. We permit the respondents (petitioners here) to tender the unconditional apology before the High Court judge," it said, directing high court Telangana High Court registrar general to reopen the case before the judge concerned who would pass the final order.
The bench said the apology to the high court judge would be filed within a week after the case was reopened and the high court judge would take a call on the apology within a week thereafter.
"We repeat that the courts have no pleasure in penalising the lawyers from acting in a manner which will amount to interference of this court," the CJI said, allowing the parties to appear virtually before the high court.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing in a contempt notice, tendered an "unconditional and unreserved apology" and explained the circumstances in which the statements were made.
On July 29, the apex court issued contempt notices to Raju, his advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil, and other lawyers involved, refusing to allow them to withdraw the petition and said, "We cannot permit judges to be out in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge. Here we were trying to protect lawyers." It was hearing a transfer plea filed by Raju filed through Patil.
While directing the litigant and the lawyers to furnish an apology, the bench had previously noted it would consider whether to accept it or not.
"We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw. We dismissed the request," it said.
The case stems from the high court's decision to quash a criminal case against the chief minister under the SC/ST Act.
The petitioner later moved the top court with a transfer plea, alleging bias and impropriety on the part of the high court judge.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
