Madhya Pradesh High Court takes stern action against respondent for attempting to improperly contact and influence the judiciary during ongoing writ petition.
In a significant move to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against respondent No.7, Mr. Sanjay Satyendra Pathak, for attempting to improperly contact and influence a sitting judge. The order, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, underscores the court's commitment to maintaining the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
The issue arose when a judge, presiding over Writ Petition No. 28456/2025, reported an attempt by Mr. Pathak to engage in discussions regarding the case. The judge, in an order dated September 1, 2025, recused himself from the case and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for reallocation to an appropriate bench. This act of attempted influence was deemed to potentially interfere with the due course of justice.
The court referred to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "criminal contempt" as any act that scandalises the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The bench concluded that Mr. Pathak’s conduct prima facie fell within these parameters, meriting a suo motu contempt petition.
In light of these developments, the Registry has been directed to register a criminal contempt petition against Mr. Pathak, with proceedings scheduled to commence on April 6, 2026. This decisive action reflects the judiciary's zero-tolerance policy towards attempts that undermine its integrity and processes.
Advocates Shri Arvind Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Puneet Shroti represented the petitioner, while the state was represented by Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate. Senior Advocate Shri Anil Khare, along with Advocate Shri Siddharth Shukla, appeared for the respondent involved in the contemptuous act.
This case serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary’s vigilance and resolve in preserving its foundational principles against undue influences, ensuring that justice is delivered without fear or favor.
Bottom Line:
Attempt to improperly contact and influence a Judge of the Court during the pendency of a writ petition amounts to prima facie criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c)
