“Targeting Judges Undermines Confidence in Justice,” Telangana HC Justice Accepts Apology
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of Telangana High Court takes a plea of an antipodal allegation and advises the litigant, allegations of a scandalous nature destroy the confidences of the people.
In an important statement about the sanctity of judicial integrity, Telangana High Court Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya heard unconditional apology of a litigant and two among his counsel on Friday, as ordered by the apex court in its order. The apology was based on a transfer petition with scurrilous and scandalous allegations which has led to contempt proceedings.
The apology came following a show-cause notice issued by a Supreme Court bench headed by its Chief Justice B. R. Gavai on July 30, emphasizing that High Court judges are in no way inferior to the Supreme Court bench.The notice was issued against the alleged remark made by N. Pedi Raju, the litigant and counsel Ritesh Patil as well as Nitin Meshram during the argument to transfer a case involving the Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.
On Aug 11, the Supreme Court cited the Telangana High Court registrar to reconsider the case before Justice Bhattacharya and ordered an apology to be given within a week. This was done to just allow the judge to gauge whether to endorse it or not.
Also Read: Cases Filed in Hyderabad After “Marwari Go Back” Slogan Sparks Bandh Call
In the order, Justice Bhattacharya said, I have gone through the Affidavits of Apology filed by the three alleged contemnors. ..I apologize.. The thing is closed on my side.” She also directed that the suo motu contempt case be continued in the Supreme Court as already so directed.
Looking at the wider context, Justice Bhattacharya cautioned against personal attacks on the judges which tend to undermine the bedrock between the courts and litigants. She pointed out that judges should not be vilified because some accuse them of being biased or having collateral interests and this would result to skeptical and uncertain judges which in turn act contrary to judicial independence and perceived justice.She also emphasized that judgeship is never about the might of the chair but about the distribution of justice conscientiously, committed and with com-passion.
The case evidenced the determination of the judiciary to act in keeping with its dignity and the rule of law. It also shows the necessity of good conduct in the court and aftermaths of disobedient behavior in the court process.
