The Madhya Pradesh High Court has accepted the unconditional apology tendered by BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak in a suo motu criminal contempt case arising from his attempt to contact a judge hearing a matter connected to him. While the Division Bench held that making a call and sending a message to a judge hearing or about to hear a case amounts to criminal contempt, it declined to impose any punishment after concluding that the incident did not substantially interfere with the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings originated from an order passed in a writ petition concerning allegations of illegal mining. During the hearing on September 1, 2025, the Single Judge recorded that Sanjay Satyendra Pathak had attempted to call the judge to discuss the matter and directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench. Subsequently, another writ petition led the Division Bench to direct the registration of a suo motu criminal contempt case against Pathak.
After notice was issued, Pathak filed an affidavit stating that the call had been made by mistake, was immediately disconnected, and that he had later sent only an introductory message. He expressed unconditional regret and apologised to both the Court and the concerned judge.
Court's Observations
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal examined the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Sections 2(c), 12 and 13. It observed that no person directly or indirectly connected with a case should attempt to meet, call or message the judge hearing or likely to hear that matter.
The Bench observed:
"No one who is directly or indirectly connected with any case should make any attempt to meet, call or message the judge who is hearing or about to hear such case."
The Court further held that the act of making the call and sending the message fell within the definition of criminal contempt. However, it also found that the incident had not substantially interfered with the due course of justice, a requirement under Section 13 of the Act for imposing punishment.
Court's Decision
Accepting the apology, the High Court decided not to impose any sentence or fine. The Bench noted that the apology was unconditional and bona fide, and therefore deserved acceptance under the Contempt of Courts Act.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Pathak was expected to exercise greater care in future.
It accepted his unconditional apology with a warning that such conduct must not be repeated.
Case Details
Case Title: In Reference (Suo Motu Contempt) v. Shri Sanjay Satyendra Pathak
Case Number: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5 of 2026
Judge: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal
Decision Date: 22 July 2026
