The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to “scurrilous and scandalous” allegations made against a sitting Telangana High Court judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, in a transfer petition. The court has issued show cause notices to the petitioner, the Advocate-on-Record (AOR), and the lawyers involved in drafting and filing the petition.
Learn how Legalspace helps lawyers streamline clause generation, organise legal documents, and draft complex legal materials more efficiently.
The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to “scurrilous and scandalous” allegations made against a sitting Telangana High Court judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, in a transfer petition. The court has issued show cause notices to the petitioner, the Advocate-on-Record (AOR), and the lawyers involved in drafting and filing the petition.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a transfer petition filed by N. Peddi Raju, seeking the transfer of a criminal case concerning Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy from the Telangana High Court. The petition contained remarks against Justice Bhattacharya, prompting the court’s displeasure.
“On one hand, we are trying to protect lawyers from misuse of provisions by investigating agencies; we cannot allow judges to be put in a box and be subjected to unfounded allegations,” the CJI remarked.
At the outset, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. However, the CJI observed that it was the professional duty of lawyers and the AOR to carefully vet the contents of a petition before filing it.
The court proceeded to issue notices to the petitioner, the AOR, and advocates involved in drafting the petition, directing them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The notices are returnable on August 11, 2025.
The order noted: “It is not only the litigant but also the lawyer who subscribes to such allegations who would be equally guilty of committing contempt of court.”
The bench also recorded that despite the counsel’s request to withdraw the matter after the court’s objection, it was not inclined to permit withdrawal. The petition was dismissed outright.
The case before the Telangana High Court involved allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016. The complaint, filed by N. Peddi Raju, alleged that CM Revanth Reddy was involved in vandalism at a Scheduled Caste community society, accompanied by caste-based abuses.
On July 17, 2025, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya quashed the proceedings, holding that there was no evidence of Reddy’s presence at the scene. The petitioner had attempted to file a transfer application before the Supreme Court at the final stage of the High Court proceedings, claiming he was not allowed to present his case.
Justice Bhattacharya noted that the transfer plea was moved after the matter had been reserved for orders and that there was no indication of when it had been filed.
The matter will now be heard on August 11, 2025, when the Supreme Court will consider whether to proceed with contempt action against the petitioner and the lawyers involved.
Case Reference: N. Peddi Raju v. Anumula Revanth Reddy | T.P. (Crl.) No. 613/2025
Deep Karia is the Director at Legalspace, a pioneering LegalTech startup that is reshaping the Indian legal ecosystem through innovative AI-driven solutions. With a robust background in technology and business management, Deep brings a wealth of experience to his role, focusing on enhancing legal research, automating document workflows, and developing cloud-based legal services. His commitment to leveraging technology to improve legal practices empowers legal professionals to work more efficiently and effectively.
