In Brief

The Supreme Court upheld a suo motu contempt petition against three individuals for scandalous and scurrilous allegations made against two judges. The case involved letters sent by Shri Vijay Kurle (State President of Indian Bar Association) and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan (claiming to represent an NGO), with Shri Nilesh Ojha (National President of Indian Bar Association) allegedly acting in tandem. The allegations attributed bias, malafide and incompetence to the judges in contemptuous language. The Court held that its power to punish for contempt derives from Article 129 of the Constitution, not from the Contempt of Courts Act, and can be exercised suo motu without Attorney General consent. Fair criticism of judgments is permissible, but attributing motives or questioning judicial integrity constitutes contempt. The Court found all three guilty, emphasizing that such concerted, intemperate allegations—made to intimidate judges—threaten public confidence in the judiciary and must be firmly checked.

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