In a judgment delivered on 2 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of three individuals for criminal contempt for forging and submitting fake interim orders purportedly issued by the Madras High Court. While affirming their guilt, the Court described the act as “one of the most dreaded” forms of contempt, stating that such conduct strikes at the heart of the judicial process. However, it reduced their sentence from six months to one month of simple imprisonment.
Background of the Case:
The case arose from a decree dated 17 November 2004 passed by the District Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode, in Original Suit No. 212 of 2000, in favour of J.K.K. Rangammal Charitable Trust, ordering recovery of possession and arrears of rent from the judgment debtors. Upon the initiation of execution proceedings in 2018, the judgment debtors produced photocopies of three allegedly interim orders from the Madras High Court (in CRP Nos. 1467, 1468, and 1469 of 2018) purporting to stay the decree.
However, verification revealed that no such Civil Revision Petitions had ever been filed, and that the named judge, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, was not holding the concerned roster on the stated date. The Decree Holder lodged complaints with both the High Court and the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, prompting criminal investigation.
Contempt Proceedings:
Following a police investigation and a writ petition (WP No. 22410 of 2018) filed by the Decree Holder, the Madras High Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Although the contempt matter was formally registered in 2022 due to a misplaced case bundle, the Supreme Court noted that the proceedings effectively began in 2018 when the Single Judge ordered initiation of contempt proceedings.
The High Court framed charges against several individuals, including appellants Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan (Contemnor No. 4), M. Muruganandam (Contemnor No. 3), and S. Amal Raj (Contemnor No. 7), for creating and submitting forged High Court orders with the intent to obstruct the course of justice.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court:
Counsel for the appellants argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as they were initiated more than a year after the alleged contempt (April 2018). They also contended that the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be equivalent to that of criminal trials, and that formal charges had not been properly framed.
The respondents, including the High Court and the Decree Holder, maintained that the proceedings were initiated within the limitation period as the writ petition was filed on 20 August 2018 and the Single Judge had directed suo motu action on 5 September 2018, well within one year of the incident. They asserted that overwhelming evidence, including witness statements, voice recordings, and forensic reports, supported the conviction.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, found that the High Court had correctly held the appellants guilty of contempt. The Court observed:
“Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the most dreaded acts of contempt of court. It not only thwarts the administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing forgery of record.”
The Court noted that Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan (C4) had prepared the fake orders with the assistance of others and supplied them to the judgment debtors. It further noted that Amal Raj (C7) was the person who floated the idea of fabricating the orders, and that Muruganandam (C3) had knowingly submitted them to the court bailiff.
The Supreme Court cited the ruling in In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, observing that the very utilisation of a forged order, even if not authored by the person, constitutes contempt.
On the limitation argument, the Court relied on the decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, holding that the initiation of contempt proceedings in 2018 was within the permissible time limit and that the delay in formal registration did not invalidate the proceedings.
Conclusion and Decision:
While affirming the conviction of all three appellants for criminal contempt, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from six months of simple imprisonment, as awarded by the High Court, to one month. The Court directed:
“The appellants shall surrender before the Registrar of the High Court of Madras within 15 days from today to undergo the sentence.”
The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s resolve to protect the sanctity of court proceedings and serves as a warning against any attempt to misuse the judicial process through forgery or deception.
Citation:
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan & Others vs High Court of Madras, Criminal Appeal Nos. 5245 and 4219 of 2024, and Criminal Appeal arising out of Diary No. 45480 of 2024
