Introduction:
In a strongly worded order underscoring the importance of judicial discipline, institutional integrity, and respect for the independence of courts, the Gujarat High Court has recommended initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against a serving Additional District Judge who made allegations against a senior High Court judge in written submissions filed before the Court. The High Court observed that the allegations not only scandalized the institution but also directly lowered the authority of the Court and undermined public confidence in the judicial system.
The matter arose in X v. High Court of Gujarat Through Registrar General, Special Civil Application No. 5112 of 2026, before a Division Bench comprising Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra. The petitioner, a serving Additional District Judge, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of a departmental inquiry initiated against him on allegations of misconduct. Along with the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had also sought reinstatement, transfer of the inquiry to another senior judge, and quashing of his suspension order.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench made significant observations regarding the conduct of the petitioner after the matter had already been heard and judgment reserved. The Court noted that after conclusion of oral arguments, the petitioner bypassed his advocate-on-record and senior counsel and directly submitted written submissions before the Court Master. These submissions, supported by the petitioner’s personal affidavit, allegedly contained statements accusing a senior High Court judge of exercising influence and “control” over various branches of the High Court and over junior judges.
The Court found these allegations deeply disturbing and prima facie constituting criminal contempt. According to the Bench, assertions suggesting that a senior judge could direct or control junior judges strike at the very foundation of judicial independence and impartiality. The Court therefore directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench handling contempt matters for consideration of initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
Apart from the contempt aspect, the judgment also dealt extensively with principles governing judicial review of disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers. The Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the departmental inquiry and reiterated that the disciplinary authority possesses wide discretion to initiate inquiries based upon information received from various sources, without the necessity of a formal written complaint supported by sworn affidavits.
The ruling is significant because it not only addresses the legal limits of judicial criticism and contempt but also reaffirms institutional principles governing judicial discipline, internal accountability, and public confidence in the administration of justice.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, a serving Additional District Judge, approached the Gujarat High Court challenging the departmental inquiry initiated against him by the High Court administration. He sought quashing of the inquiry proceedings, revocation of his suspension, reinstatement into service, and transfer of the disciplinary inquiry to another senior judge.
The principal contention raised by the petitioner was that the departmental proceedings lacked legal foundation because no written complaint, sworn affidavit, or independently verifiable material existed against him. According to the petitioner, initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the absence of a formal complaint violated principles of fairness and rendered the entire inquiry arbitrary and unsustainable.
The petitioner further argued that the charges framed against him were vague, ambiguous, and lacking in material particulars. It was submitted that unless specific allegations supported by concrete material were disclosed, the petitioner would be unable to effectively defend himself during the disciplinary process. On this basis, it was argued that continuation of the inquiry itself amounted to abuse of process and deserved interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner also appears to have raised concerns regarding impartiality in the conduct of the inquiry. This formed the basis of his request seeking transfer of the inquiry to another senior judge. During the proceedings, reference was also made to writ petitions allegedly filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, though the pleadings before the High Court did not clearly disclose the prayers sought in those petitions.
After hearing arguments and reserving judgment, the Court requested copies of the petitions filed before the Supreme Court to ascertain the nature of reliefs sought therein. However, instead of routing the material through his advocates, the petitioner directly submitted written submissions before the Court Master, personally signed and supported by affidavit.
These written submissions became the central issue leading to possible contempt proceedings. In paragraph two of the submissions, the petitioner allegedly asserted that a senior High Court judge exercised “good control over all the branches of the High Court” and was capable of directing or controlling junior judges.
On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court administration opposed the writ petition and defended the disciplinary proceedings. It was argued that the disciplinary authority possesses statutory and administrative powers to initiate inquiry proceedings whenever material or information indicating misconduct comes to its notice.
The High Court administration submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be made dependent upon existence of a written complaint or sworn affidavit. According to the respondents, such a requirement would unnecessarily restrict the powers of the disciplinary authority and defeat the objective of maintaining institutional discipline within the judiciary.
The respondents also opposed the petitioner’s contention regarding vagueness of charges. It was argued that whether charges are vague or sufficiently specific is a matter to be examined during the inquiry process itself. The disciplinary mechanism provides adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer to raise all objections before the Inquiry Officer and subsequently before the disciplinary authority.
With regard to the allegations made in the written submissions, the High Court viewed them as an attack upon judicial independence and institutional integrity. The respondents maintained that imputations suggesting that senior judges control or direct junior judges directly undermine public confidence in impartial adjudication and amount to scandalizing the Court.
The dispute therefore involved two separate but interconnected issues — the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the consequences arising from allegations made against the judiciary during pendency of the proceedings.
Court’s Judgment:
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the departmental inquiry and simultaneously directed that the matter relating to the petitioner’s written allegations against a senior judge be placed before the appropriate contempt bench for consideration of criminal contempt proceedings.
At the outset, the Division Bench rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the legality of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court categorically held that initiation of a departmental inquiry does not require the existence of a formal written complaint supported by sworn affidavits or independently verified material.
The Bench observed that disciplinary authorities possess broad powers to initiate inquiries on the basis of information received from multiple sources. According to the Court, imposing a rigid requirement of written complaints and affidavits would run contrary to the statutory rules governing disciplinary control over judicial officers.
The Court emphasized that maintaining discipline and integrity within the judicial system requires flexibility in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. It therefore held that the authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings is entitled to form its opinion on the basis of information available before it without being confined to formal complaint mechanisms.
The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the charges against him were vague. The Bench observed that questions regarding adequacy or specificity of charges are matters that can appropriately be examined during the inquiry process itself.
According to the Court, the petitioner retained full liberty to raise objections before the Inquiry Officer and subsequently before the disciplinary authority. The Court clarified that exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 at the stage of ongoing disciplinary inquiry is limited and does not ordinarily extend to microscopic examination of factual disputes relating to the framing of charges.
The Court specifically noted that it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to assess whether the charges are vague after considering the material placed during proceedings. Judicial interference at a premature stage would unnecessarily obstruct the disciplinary mechanism.
However, the most significant aspect of the judgment concerned the petitioner’s conduct after conclusion of oral hearings.
The Bench recorded that on April 15, 2026, after hearing senior counsel appearing for both sides, the matter had been reserved for judgment. At that stage, the Court had merely requested copies of petitions filed before the Supreme Court because the pleadings before the High Court did not clearly disclose the reliefs sought therein.
Instead of limiting himself to furnishing the requested documents through counsel, the petitioner personally submitted written submissions directly before the Court Master. These submissions were signed solely by the petitioner and supported by his affidavit, thereby indicating that the petitioner personally affirmed the truth of the statements made therein.
The Court found paragraph two of the submissions particularly objectionable. According to the Bench, the petitioner sought to create an impression that a senior High Court judge exercised extensive control over all branches of the High Court and possessed the ability to direct or influence junior judges.
The Court held that such assertions made by a serving Additional District Judge were extremely serious in nature because they attacked the institutional credibility and independence of the judiciary itself.
The Bench observed that imputations suggesting that judges decide matters under the influence or control of senior judges directly scandalize the Court and lower public confidence in the administration of justice. Such allegations, according to the Court, undermine the constitutional principle of independent adjudication and tend to interfere with judicial proceedings.
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioner’s statements prima facie constituted criminal contempt. The Bench held that the allegations not only scandalized the institution but also amounted to conduct tending to obstruct administration of justice.
The Court emphasized that allegations of this nature coming from a serving judicial officer are even more serious because judges are expected to uphold public confidence in judicial independence rather than weaken it through speculative accusations.
Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the Court directed that the papers relating to the petitioner’s written submissions be placed before the Division Bench assigned the contempt roster for consideration of initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
The Court further directed the petitioner to remain personally present before the contempt bench on the next date of listing.
The judgment reflects the judiciary’s consistent position that fair criticism of judgments and judicial functioning is permissible within constitutional limits, but allegations that attribute improper influence, control, or manipulation within the judicial system strike at the core of judicial independence and may amount to criminal contempt.
The ruling also reiterates the limited scope of judicial review over ongoing disciplinary proceedings, especially in matters concerning members of the judicial service. By refusing to interfere at the threshold stage, the High Court reinforced the principle that disciplinary mechanisms must ordinarily be allowed to proceed without premature constitutional intervention.
At the same time, the judgment sends a strong institutional message regarding the responsibility of judicial officers to maintain decorum, discipline, and respect for constitutional institutions, particularly while participating in legal proceedings concerning their own service matters.