Supreme Court acts against advocates for scandalous remarks in transfer plea

New Delhi, July 30, 2025 On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued contempt notices to three lawyers. The Supreme Court accused them of making scandalous and unfounded remarks against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court. The remarks appeared in a transfer plea that sought the judge’s removal from a case involving SC/ST Act charges against CM Revanth Reddy.

Taking strong exception to the language used in the petition, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said the judiciary will not tolerate such attacks. “At a time when we are protecting lawyers from getting summons, we cannot allow our judges to be put in the dock,” the bench observed. It stressed that the remarks were both scurrilous and scandalous.

The petitioners, whose identities remain undisclosed, had sought the case’s transfer. They alleged bias and impropriety by Justice Bhattacharya. However, the apex court viewed the claims as a deliberate attempt to malign the judge and undermine the judicial process. The bench emphasized that lawyers who frame or support such petitions are equally liable for contempt.

The Supreme Court noted that the issue extended beyond litigants, as lawyers themselves had prepared the questionable plea. “The lawyers who draft such petitions, not just the litigants, will also face contempt,” the bench ruled. Legal experts interpret this as a stern message to deter any misuse of legal pleadings for character assassination. The petitioners sought to withdraw the plea, but the court refused and proceeded to issue the contempt notices.

This action reflects the judiciary’s growing intolerance toward any form of legal misconduct aimed at influencing or discrediting judges. Over recent years, several cases have drawn attention to similar instances where legal documents contained defamatory or politically motivated content. The latest development signals a tightening stance by the Supreme Court on professional accountability within the legal community.

The identities of the three lawyers may emerge during future hearings. For now, the Supreme Court remains focused on protecting judicial dignity and upholding the rule of law.The bench warned that neither litigants nor lawyers can misuse legal platforms to attack judges.

Source