‘Judicial patience not weakness’: Himachal High Court drops contempt case after apology

“Judicial patience must never be mistaken for weakness. The power to punish for contempt, though used with restraint, remains a vital safeguard of judicial integrity. The magnanimity extended today is not an indulgence, but a testament to the court’s enduring faith in the redeemability of those who serve the law,” the court said, accepting the apology.

In the live video uploaded in 2025, the respondents allegedly made scandalous allegations against the judiciary following a reported delay in the investigation of a theft at their residence. Although the court had earlier rejected their statement as a “paper apology” and proceeded towards framing of charges, it later accepted a fresh unconditional apology after concluding that it reflected genuine regret.

Live video, contempt, apology

The high court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings on March 3, 2025, after examining the contents of the Facebook live video uploaded by respondent number 1, advocate Dhairya Sushant. It issued a show-cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, observing that the statements warranted criminal contempt proceedings.

Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sandeep Sharma observed that the video had caused serious harm to the institution of the judiciary.

When the matter was heard on June 25, 2025, the respondents tendered an apology. However, the bench refused to accept it, observing that it appeared to be an attempt to avoid punishment rather than a sincere admission of wrongdoing. The court then directed that the matter be listed for framing of charges.

Before charges could be framed, the respondents submitted a fresh unconditional apology on April 29, 2026, supported by affidavits. They also appeared personally before the court, expressed regret and assured the judges that they would never repeat such conduct.

The bench noted that the respondents did not attempt to justify the remarks made in the broadcast. Instead, they admitted that the statements questioning the conduct of the presiding judge, alleging a nexus between lawyers, judicial officers and drug dealers, and other remarks made were inappropriate, excessive and below the standards expected of an advocate and a responsible citizen. They also acknowledged that parts of the video had the tendency to lower the judiciary’s authority in the public eye.

They explained that the remarks were made during an emotional outburst after their family allegedly became victims of an armed robbery involving valuables worth around Rs 11 lakh. They said the frustration over the delay in the probe led them to make the statements that they later regretted deeply.

‘Damage to judiciary serious’

The high court observed that the video had caused serious harm to the institution of the judiciary and to the reputation of the judge concerned. The court said it was “fully convinced” that an attempt had been made to cause irreparable damage to the judiciary as a whole and particularly to the judge “who had been discharging his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity.” It held that the language used in the video was inappropriate, excessive and capable of undermining public confidence in courts.

The court added that ‘words’ and ‘expressions’ used in the video were not only inappropriate, unrestrained and excessive, but had the effect of undermining the authority of the court of law before the general public and can be construed to be scandalising and undermining the dignity of judicial institution.

At the same time, the judges noted that there was nothing to suggest the respondents had engaged in similar misconduct in the past. They also found that the later apology reflected genuine regret because the respondents admitted every allegation without attempting to twist facts or defend their conduct.

“Though for their misconduct, respondents are required to be dealt with in accordance with law, but since they have tendered unconditional apology for their misconduct and have also not made an attempt to hoodwink this court by twisting the facts, rather they have owned whatever they stated in the video, this court at the first instance needs to determine whether unconditional apology can be accepted in given facts and circumstances of case or not,” the court said.

Warning against attacks on judiciary

Before disposing of the proceedings, the high court issued a stern warning against using social media to attack the judiciary. The bench expressed hope that the respondents would not post any tweet or social media content undermining the dignity of the judiciary in future. It warned that any attempt to tarnish the institution’s image would invite prompt and firm action.

“Considering unconditional apology tendered to be genuine, we hope and trust that no tweet or social media post undermining the dignity of judiciary shall be posted in future on social media by the respondents. Any attempt to tarnish the image of judiciary at the behest of respondents will invite prompt and firm action,” the court said.

Accordingly, the court accepted the unconditional apology, closed the criminal contempt proceedings and cautioned both respondents to remain respectful while dealing with judicial proceedings in future.