In Brief

A sitting High Court judge was found guilty of criminal contempt of the Supreme Court for making unsubstantiated public allegations against fellow judges and the judiciary, thereby scandalising the court and undermining public confidence. The Court held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against sitting judges independently of any impeachment procedure. The judge's subsequent conduct—including challenging the court's jurisdiction and purporting to pass orders interfering with the pending proceedings—constituted further contempt. The judgment emphasised that while criticism of judicial decisions is welcome, unfounded attacks on judicial integrity and obstructive conduct cross the threshold of permissible expression. The Court noted a systemic gap: while impeachment exists for judicial removal, no intermediate mechanisms exist for addressing misconduct falling short of impeachment, calling for national debate on judicial appointment procedures and accountability.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.