The Himachal Pradesh High Court has closed criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate and a former Member of Parliament after accepting their unconditional apology for making derogatory remarks in a Facebook Live video, while issuing a stern warning that judicial patience should not be mistaken for weakness.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep Sharma accepted the fresh apology during a hearing on July 27, concluding that the respondents displayed genuine remorse. The bench cautioned both individuals that any future social media posts or online comments targeting the judiciary or undermining its dignity would face prompt and firm legal consequences.
The judges noted that while the court exercises restraint in using its contempt powers, the authority remains an essential safeguard to protect judicial integrity.
Background of the Contempt Case
The high court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings on March 3, 2025, after examining a Facebook Live broadcast uploaded by advocate Dhairya Sushant. In the video, the respondents made scandalous allegations against a high court judge, questioned judicial integrity, and alleged a nexus among lawyers, judicial officers, and drug dealers.
The respondents later explained that the broadcast was triggered by frustration and emotional distress following an armed robbery at their residence involving valuables worth approximately Rs 11 lakh, where they felt the police investigation had been unduly delayed.
Rejection of Initial Plea
When the matter was heard on June 25, 2025, the respondents submitted an initial apology. However, the bench rejected the submission, viewing it as a procedural effort to evade punishment rather than a sincere acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Consequently, the court ordered the case to be listed for the formal framing of charges under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Final Apology and Closure of Proceedings
Before charges were framed, the respondents submitted a new unconditional apology on April 29, 2026, supported by sworn affidavits. They also appeared personally before the bench to express regret and assured the court that such conduct would not recur.
In their submission, the respondents admitted that their statements were improper, excessive, and unbefitting an advocate and a responsible citizen. They conceded that the broadcast had lowered the court’s standing in the eyes of the public and made no attempt to defend or justify their remarks.
In accepting the apology, the bench noted that the respondents had no prior history of similar misconduct and had admitted all facts without attempt to mislead the court. Finding the second apology to be sincere, the high court formally closed the contempt proceedings while directing both respondents to maintain appropriate respect for judicial institutions in the future.
