The Karnataka High Court has held an advocate guilty of criminal contempt for alleging during court proceedings that a trial court had delivered its judgment through “match fixing” and for subsequently describing the High Court order that led to contempt proceedings as false, fabricated and forged. A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan found both charges proved and sentenced the advocate to 15 days’ simple imprisonment.
The Court also directed that he be taken into custody forthwith and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision to the Bar Council for appropriate proceedings on whether he was fit to continue in the profession.
Background
The suo motu criminal contempt proceedings arose from an order dated September 15, 2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 2018.
In that order, the High Court recorded that the appellant’s counsel had earlier been asked to file a written synopsis concerning the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, along with particulars of the corresponding witnesses and documents. Despite taking time, the synopsis was not filed, though the Court nevertheless proceeded with the hearing.
According to the order, when the Court raised queries, the advocate alleged that the trial court had passed its judgment by “match fixing”. The Bench recorded that despite being advised not to make what it described as derogatory and baseless statements against the trial court, he persisted with the allegation.
The earlier Bench had observed:
“By such conduct he has attempted to scandalize the Trial Court and failed to maintain decorum of the Court attracting Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
The matter was thereafter placed before the Chief Justice for necessary action, leading to registration of the suo motu contempt case under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution.
Advocate Initially Offered Apology, Later Chose to Contest
When the matter was listed on September 10, 2026, the advocate told the Court that he would file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his conduct and for writing the letter in question.
However, when the case was subsequently taken up, he informed the Bench that he wanted to contest the contempt proceedings and was no longer willing to tender an unconditional apology.
In his objections to the contempt notice, he alleged that the material relied upon against him was false, fabricated, forged and created to implicate him in the criminal contempt case. He further alleged that the proceedings had been initiated to prevent him from continuing as counsel for the appellant in the pending criminal appeal.
The High Court noted that this amounted to imputing motives to the September 15, 2025 order itself, which the advocate had described as false, fabricated and forged.
Two Charges Framed
The Bench framed two charges against him.
The first concerned his allegation that the trial court judgment had been delivered through “match fixing”. The Court stated that such an utterance scandalised the court proceedings and tended to lower the authority of the court, thereby amounting to criminal contempt.
The second charge arose from his sworn statement alleging that the September 15, 2025 order of the High Court was false, fabricated and forged and had been created to falsely implicate him. The Bench held that this allegation also had a tendency to scandalise the proceedings and lower the authority and respect of the Court.
Defence Rejected, Both Charges Held Proved
When called upon to defend himself, the advocate submitted that his reference to “match fixing” concerned the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor.
The Bench, however, noted that this was not the stand taken by him in the objections filed in response to the contempt notice.
As regards the allegation that the High Court’s September 15, 2025 order was false, fabricated and forged, the advocate submitted that it was a typographical mistake. The Court noted that he had nevertheless not offered any apology, much less an unconditional apology.
The Bench concluded:
“We therefore, find both the charges proved against him.”
15 Days’ Simple Imprisonment
Considering his misconduct and demeanour before the Court, the Bench sentenced him to 15 days’ simple imprisonment and directed that he be taken into custody immediately.
The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to issue a conviction warrant under Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. The Registry was also ordered to provide him a free copy of the order and communicate the decision to the Bar Council for appropriate proceedings regarding his continuation in the legal profession.
Case Details
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Sri H.P. Sabjan
Case No.: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2026
Bench: Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan
Date: September 18, 2026
