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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
1 CONCR-5-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
nd
ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2026
CONTEMPT PETITION CRIMINAL No. 5 of 2026
IN REFERENCE (SUO MOTU CONTEMPT)
Versus
SHRI SANJAY SATYENDRA PATHAK
Appearance:
Shri Mukul Rohatgi - Senior Advocate (through VC) with Shri Siddharth
Shukla - Advocate (through VC) and Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shamila Iram Fatima - Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Devdatt Kamat - Senior Advocate (through VC) with Shri Aryan
Urmaliya - Advocate for the intervenor.
Reserved on : 15.07.2026
Pronounced on : 22.07.2026
.............................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Vivek Rusia, J.
The brief history of this case, which led to the registration of
contempt proceedings against Sanjay Satyendra Pathak (hereinafter referred
as the contemnor) is that the petitioner Ashutosh Dixit filed a Writ Petition
No.28456/2025 before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondent to
conclude the enquiry in relation to the complaint dated 31.01.2025, in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
2 CONCR-5-2026
accordance with the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Lalita Kumari

vs. Government of U.P., reported in (2014)2 SCC 1, and if upon conclusion
of the preliminary enquiry, the information disclosed in the petitioner's
complaint is found to reveal the commission of cognizable offense, the
respondent authorities shall forthwith register an FIR. A copy of the
complaint is filed as Annexure P/1 in the writ petition, alleging illegal
mining by the three companies owned by contemnor , and causing loss of
Rs.1,200 crores to the State Government (Rs. 1,000 crores + 18% GST).
According to the petitioner, the Economic Offences Wing has forwarded the
complaint to the mining department. The mining department has constituted
a committee, vide order dated 23.04.2025. In the said writ petition, Sanjay
Satyendra Pathak (contemnor) was not pleaded as respondent. The said writ
petition came up for hearing on 01.09.2025 and the following order was
passed.
"Application (IA No.16218/2025) for intervention is perused by the Court.
Power of attorney executed by the interveners shows the same to be executed by
Mrs. Nirmala Pathak W/o. Late Shri Satyendra Pathak and Mr. Yash Pathak S/o.
Shri Sanjay Satyendra Pathak, R/o. Katni, Madhya Pradesh.
Mr. Sanjay Pathak has made an attempt to call me to have discussion regarding this
particular matter, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for listing the matter
before the appropriate Bench for consideration."

( emphasis supplied)
2. After 01.09.2025, the above writ petition has not been listed for
hearing till date. Ashutosh Dixit filed another Writ Petition No.4699/2026,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
3 CONCR-5-2026
seeking direction to the respondent No.2/High Court of Madhya Pradesh to

take judicial cognisance of the attempt made by contemnor as observed by
Writ Court on 01.09.2025. The writ petition came up for hearing before the
Division Bench of this Court on 02.04.2026. The Division Bench of this
Court has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the Registry to
register a suo motu criminal contempt petition against contemnor and
directed the matter to be listed on 06.04.2026. Notice was issued on
06.04.2026, and the same was accepted by the learned counsel appearing for
the contemnor, who sought time to submit an affidavit explaining the
circumstances under which the call was made and tendering an unconditional
apology. The contemnor was directed to remain present before this Court on
21.04.2026.
3. Meanwhile, the petitioner Ashutosh Dixit approached the Apex
Court by way of SLP challenging the order dated 02.04.2026. The Apex
Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn; thereafter Ashutosh Dixit filed an
application for intervention in this contempt reference, which came to be
rejected on 21.04.2026 on the ground that no such liberty has been granted
by the Apex Court by order dated 20.04.2026 to intervene in the matter.
However. Division Bench permitted him to assist the Court without any
liberty to file any pleadings.
4. Meanwhile, the contemnor has submitted an affidavit submitting
an unconditional apology to this Court as well as to the learned Single Judge.
According to the contemnor, on or around 30.08.2025, the call by mistakenly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
4 CONCR-5-2026
made to the Hon'ble Judge and realising the same, it was immediately

disconnected and thereafter out of courtesy, an introductory message was
sent. It is submitted by him that he had no conversation at all of whatsoever
nature with the Hon'ble Judge. The contemnor again expresses unqualified
regret and remorse for the missed call made mistakenly. According to the
contemnor, he has shown deepest regard and reverence for the judicial
institutions and can never intend to interfere with or influence any
administration of justice.
5. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent contemnor, also submitted that the call was mistakenly made and
immediately disconnected without any conversation; since it was bonafide
mistake, the unconditional apology of the contemnor may be accepted, as
has been done by the Apex Court in the cases of:
(i) Ramchandra Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa, reported in (1983) 2
SCC 275 :
....Shri Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that the
appellant should not have written the letter in question and he had done so when he
was under great mental stress owing to certain proceedings which had been initiated
against him by his wife who had abandoned him. He again reiterates before this
Court that the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant before the High Court
may be accepted and that the sentence imposed on the appellant may be set aside.
Having regard to the nature of the accusation and the delay of eight years we are of
the view that this is a fit case in which we should accept the unqualified apology
tendered by the appellant and set aside the sentence imposed by the High Court on
him. We accordingly accept the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and
quash the sentence imposed on him by the High Court in these proceedings. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.

( i i ) O.P. Sharma and others vs. High Court of Punjab and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
5 CONCR-5-2026
Haryana, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 86 :

29. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. it was held by this Court that acceptance of an
apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule
and expressed its opinion as under:
(SCC pp. 408-09, paras 6-7)
"6. We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we
should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a
person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against
him to do, is to go ahead and scandalise him, and later on tender a formal empty
apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be
accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a
'licence' to scandalise courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be
rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to
join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting Judge
will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of
the fear of being scandalised and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind
making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation
were to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them
fall in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution,
will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional
ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts.
7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can take a decision which does not
displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide
matters against one or the other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision
which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it
will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn
somewhere, some day, by someone. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather
than merely sermonise), much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst
exercising the contempt jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of
unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has
been scandalised. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show
magnanimity when someone else is the victim rather than when oneself is the
victim. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult-in fact it
is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-
studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of
populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot take a
lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the day when a Judge cannot
work with Independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar
can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if any of his
orders, or the decision rendered by him, displeases any of the advocates, appearing
in the matter."
*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
6 CONCR-5-2026
34. Similar affidavits have been filed by other appellants reiterating what they had
stated before the High Court and the Magistrate concerned tendering unconditional
apology for the incident which took place in the Court at Faridabad. They also
assured this Court that they would maintain good behaviour in future. Though sub-
section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables the court to award simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to six months, the proviso empowers the court that the
accused may be discharged or punishment awarded may be remitted on apology
being made to the satisfaction of the court. In fact, Explanation to this section makes
it clear that an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified
or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

35. Considering the plea made by Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel and
President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, in tendering unconditional apology,
recorded even at the initial stage before the High Court and before the Magistrate,
Faridabad before whom the unwanted incident had occurred and the present
affidavits filed before us once again expressing unconditional apology and regret
with an undertaking that they would maintain good behaviour in future and in view
of the language used in the "proviso" and "Explanation" appended to Section 12(1)
of the Act, we accept the affidavits filed by all the appellants.
(iii) In Re : N. Peddi Raju and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2457.
16. Be that as it may, recently in the case of N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, by an order dated 23rd July 2025, a three
Judge Bench of this Court, to which two of us (The Chief Justice of India and Mr.
Justice K.V. Chandran) were a party, decided a reference with regard to the
difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court over the issue of the
sentence to be imposed on two lawyers of this Court. In the said order, we observed
that the majesty of law lies not in punishing someone, but in forgiving someone who
acknowledges their mistake. We, therefore, agreed with the view taken by the
learned Judge of this Court who had accepted the unconditional apology made by
the lawyers therein.
17. Since the learned Judge of the High Court against whom scandalous and
scurrilous allegations were made, has accepted the unconditional apology tendered
by the alleged contemnors, we are also inclined to accept the unconditional apology
tendered by them. However, we put a note of caution that the lawyers who are
expected to act as officers of Court, should be careful while subscribing their
signatures on the pleadings which are in the nature of making scandalous and
scurrilous allegations against the Judges of the Court.
6. Shri Devdatt Kamath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner Ashutosh Dixit, submits that in view of the order-sheet dated
01.09.2025, the Hon'ble Single Judge specifically mentioned that Mr. Sanjay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
7 CONCR-5-2026
Satyendra Pathak has attempted to call me to discuss this particular matter.

Therefore, by making a call, Sanjay Satyendra Pathak was intending to
attempt to have a discussion about this matter, which comes under the
definitions of Section 2(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
for which he is liable to be punished.
Heard
7 . The definition of Section 2(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 is reproduced below.
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;
8. According to the aforesaid definitions, criminal contempt means
doing of any other act whatsoever which prejudices or interferes or tends to
interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.
9. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides punishment for
contempt of court. Under sub-section (1), for a contempt of court one may be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with a fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with
both. As per the proviso, the contemnor may be discharged, or the
punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the court. As per the explanation, the apology shall not be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
8 CONCR-5-2026
rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional and if the

accused makes it bona fide. Section 12 is reproduced below.
12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be
remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is
qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
10. Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as inserted by Act 6 of
2006 with effect from 17.03.2006, says that no court shall impose a sentence
under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt
is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to
interfere with the due course of justice. Section 13 is reproduced below.
13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time being in force, —(a) no court shall impose a
sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the
contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to
interfere with the due course of justice;
(b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by
truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for
invoking the said defence is bona fide.
11. As per the order dated 01.09.2025, the contemnor, in fact, made
a call from his mobile to the High Court Judge hearing the writ petition.
However, according to the contemnor, the call was mistakenly made and
immediately disconnected without any conversation, and thereafter, he sent a
message to the Judge to give his indroduction. He has not disclosed the
content of the message in the affidavit. Therefore, the allegation against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:52540
9 CONCR-5-2026
contemnor, which is established, is only of attempting to contact a High

Court judge. However, the contemnor has not disputed or challenged the fact
recorded in the order dated 1.9.2025; rather, he has admitted his mistake in
this reference. No one who is directly or indirectly connected with any case
should make any attempt to meet, call or message the judge who is hearing
or about to hear such case. Hence, the act of making call and sending a
message by the contemnor comes under the definition of criminal contempt.
12. In view of the above finding, the contemnor should be punished
or fined, or both, or his unconditional apology is liable to be accepted. We
are satisfied that the contempt is not of such a nature that it did substantially
interfere with the due course of justice; Vide order dated 6.4.2026, this Court
has already permitted him to submit an unconditional apology. Hence, we are
inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by him. However, we
put a note of caution that a contemnor, who is Member of legislation, is
expected not to repeat such an act and should be careful in future. Hence, we
hereby accept unconditional apology with the warning to the contemnor not
to repeat this conduct in future.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 22-07-2026
17:33:26