In Reference (Suo Motu Contempt) vs. Shri Sanjay Satyendra Pathak

Held

The Court held that the act of making a call and sending a message by the contemnor to the High Court judge hearing the writ petition comes under the definition of criminal contempt, as established by the fact that a call was made and a message was sent, which the contemnor did not dispute but admitted as a mistake. The Court noted that no one connected with a case should attempt to contact the judge hearing it. However, the Court was satisfied that the contempt was not of such a nature that it substantially interfered with the due course of justice, referencing Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In light of the contemnor's unconditional apology, which was accepted, and the fact that the contempt did not substantially interfere with justice, the Court accepted the apology with a strong note of caution. The contemnor, being a Member of the Legislature, was warned not to repeat such an act and to be careful in the future. The Court accepted the unconditional apology with a warning.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashutosh Dixit, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to conclude an inquiry into a complaint alleging illegal mining by companies owned by Sanjay Satyendra Pathak, causing a loss of Rs. 1,200 crores to the State Government (including 18% GST). During the hearing of the writ petition, the contemnor, Sanjay Satyendra Pathak, was not a respondent. However, an order dated 01.09.2025 noted an attempt by Mr. Pathak to call the judge hearing the matter for discussion. The writ petition was subsequently placed before the Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate bench. The petitioner then filed another writ petition seeking judicial cognizance of this attempt, leading to the registration of a suo motu criminal contempt petition against Mr. Pathak. The contemnor submitted an unconditional apology, stating the call was a mistake and was immediately disconnected, followed by an introductory message.

Key Issues

1. Whether the act of making a phone call to a High Court judge hearing a case, even if immediately disconnected and followed by an introductory message, constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, thereby prejudicing or interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the contemnor's attempt to call the judge for discussion, as recorded in the court's order, falls within the definitions of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, making him liable for punishment. Contemnor's Contention: The contemnor, through his counsel, argued that the call was a bona fide mistake, immediately disconnected without any conversation, and that his unconditional apology should be accepted, citing precedents like Ramchandra Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa and O.P. Sharma and others vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, where apologies were accepted in similar circumstances.