The Telangana High Court has raised strong concerns over the growing trend of making personal allegations against judges, cautioning that such conduct undermines the judiciary and erodes public trust.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, while accepting the apology of a litigant and two lawyers who had earlier made accusations of bias against her, observed on August 22 that the practice of vilifying judges was deeply damaging to the administration of justice.
“A trend of vilifying Judges has emerged in recent times. Disgruntled lawyers and litigants often demand release, recusal and transfer of matters on the pretext of oblique motives attributed to the Judge. Such reckless allegations derail the course of justice by creating an environment of intimidation which is not inclusive to the effective administration of justice,” Justice Bhattacharya remarked.
The judge stressed that while critics can easily publish allegations in print or on social media, judges themselves are not in a position to publicly defend their conduct.
“Personal attacks on Judges breach the safety net of impartial decision-making and is antithetical to independent judges. Targeting of Judges makes for sceptical and unsure Judges,” she warned, adding that such actions dent the “Majesty” of courts and weaken the rule of law.
Earlier this month, contempt proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court against litigant N Peddi Raju and his lawyers, Advocates Ritesh Patil and Nitin Meshram, after they alleged that Justice Bhattacharya had shown bias in granting relief to Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The apex court directed them to apologise before the judge, leaving it to her discretion whether to accept it.
On August 22, Justice Bhattacharya accepted their apologies but also recorded that their claim of not being given sufficient hearing was contrary to court records.
“While criticizing the judgment is part of the legal process, personal attacks on a judge on allegations of bias and collateral motives rupture the implicit trust between the Court and the officers of the Court,” the ruling said.
The court emphasized that while litigants may challenge verdicts through proper legal channels, advocates—being officers of the court—carry greater responsibility to ensure the institution is not discredited.
Justice Bhattacharya expressed gratitude to the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for their support during the controversy.
Concluding her remarks, she underlined that judgeship is not about wielding power but serving justice.
“Judgeship is never about power, but about the responsibility of disseminating justice with conscience, commitment, and compassion. The common man should repose full faith and confidence in the Courts. Fortunately, notwithstanding the occasional stresses and strains, Courts continue to be proud flag-bearers of justice.”
Case: Anumula Revanth Reddy vs State of Telangana and anr. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
