High Court of Karnataka Vs H.P. Sabjan (Karnataka High Court)
“Match-Fixing” Charge Against Trial Court Lands Advocate in Jail: Karnataka HC Awards 15 Days’ Imprisonment and Refers Matter to Bar Council
Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Against Advocate
In High Court of Karnataka v. H.P. Sabjan, Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2026, decided on 18.09.2026, the Karnataka High Court sentenced an advocate to 15 days’ simple imprisonment for making a serious and baseless allegation that the Trial Court had delivered its judgment through “match-fixing” and thereafter accusing the High Court itself of creating a false, fabricated and forged order to implicate him in contempt proceedings.
Considering the nature of the misconduct and the advocate’s demeanour before the Court, the Division Bench directed that he be taken into custody forthwith. The Registry was also directed to communicate the order to the Bar Council for initiating appropriate proceedings and examining whether he was fit to continue in the legal profession.
Allegation of “Match-Fixing” Against Trial Court
The contempt proceedings originated from an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1054/2018. During the hearing of that appeal, the Court noticed that the appellant’s aged parents were waiting and therefore took up the matter for hearing.
Earlier, the advocate appearing for the appellant had been asked to submit a written synopsis setting out the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, together with particulars of the corresponding witnesses and documents. Although time had been granted, the synopsis was not filed. Nevertheless, the Court showed leniency and proceeded to hear the matter.
During the hearing, the advocate allegedly failed to address the Court on the relevant points. When the Bench raised queries, he stated that the Trial Court had passed the judgment through “match-fixing.” The High Court cautioned him against making such derogatory and unsupported allegations and specifically informed him that such conduct could amount to contempt of court. Despite the warning, he persisted with the allegation.
The Bench found that the conduct amounted to an attempt to scandalise the Trial Court and constituted a failure to maintain the dignity and decorum expected in judicial proceedings. It therefore directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action, resulting in the registration of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings.
Initial Offer to Apologise Subsequently Withdrawn
When the contempt case was listed on 10.09.2026, the advocate submitted that he would file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his conduct and for the letter written by him. However, when the matter was subsequently taken up, he changed his position and informed the Court that he intended to contest the proceedings and was no longer willing to tender an unconditional apology.
The matter assumed greater seriousness because of the stand taken by him in his written objections. In paragraph 13 of the objections, he alleged that the material relied upon against him was false, fabricated, forged and created solely to implicate him in criminal contempt proceedings. He further alleged that the entire contempt case had been fabricated to prevent him from continuing as the advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1054/2018.
In effect, the advocate not only repeated his attack against the judicial process but also attributed an improper motive to the High Court’s order dated 15.09.2025 by describing it as a false, fabricated and forged order created to implicate him.
Two Charges of Criminal Contempt Framed
The Division Bench framed two charges against the advocate. The first charge related to his allegation during the hearing of the criminal appeal that the Trial Court’s judgment was the result of “match-fixing.” The Court held that such an allegation, particularly when persisted with despite a judicial warning, had the tendency to scandalise the judicial proceedings and lower the authority of the Court.
The second charge arose from the statement made on oath in his objections that the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench was false, fabricated and forged and that the contempt proceedings themselves had been manufactured to prevent him from appearing for the appellant. The High Court held that this allegation independently had the tendency to scandalise the Court and lower its authority and public respect.
Belated Explanations Rejected by High Court
When called upon to answer the charges, the advocate attempted to explain that his reference to “match-fixing” concerned the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor rather than the Trial Court. The High Court rejected this explanation because it was inconsistent with the stand taken in his written objections and with the contemporaneous order recording what had transpired during the hearing.
Regarding the allegation that the High Court’s order was false, fabricated and forged, the advocate claimed that it was merely a typographical mistake. The Court was not convinced by the explanation. More importantly, even at that stage he did not tender any apology, much less an unconditional apology.
The Division Bench consequently held that both charges stood proved.
Fifteen Days’ Imprisonment and Immediate Custody
Having regard to the advocate’s misconduct and his conduct before the Court, the Division Bench sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 15 days. It directed that he be taken into custody immediately to serve the sentence.
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 directed to provide a free copy of the order to the contemnor immediately.
Significantly, the High Court directed the Registry to communicate the judgment to the Bar Council for appropriate disciplinary proceedings, including consideration of whether the advocate was fit to continue in the profession.
Author’s Comments
The judgment draws a firm distinction between legitimate criticism of a judicial decision and a reckless attack on the integrity of the judicial institution. An advocate is fully entitled to argue that a judgment is erroneous, contrary to evidence, perverse or legally unsustainable. However, alleging that a judicial decision was delivered through “match-fixing,” without any factual foundation, directly imputes corruption or collusion to the Court and strikes at public confidence in the administration of justice.
The contemnor’s position was further aggravated by his conduct after initiation of the proceedings. Instead of withdrawing the allegation or tendering a genuine apology, he accused the High Court of fabricating and forging its own order. His subsequent attempt to describe the allegation as a typographical error, without offering an unconditional apology, evidently failed to demonstrate remorse.
The direction to the Bar Council is equally significant. Contempt punishment addresses interference with the administration of justice, while professional disciplinary proceedings examine whether the conduct is compatible with the standards expected of an advocate. The judgment therefore sends a clear message that fearlessness in advocacy does not include a licence to make scandalous and unsupported allegations against judges or courts.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
This Suo Moto contempt petition has been registered in view of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1054/2018 (C) which would read as under:
“This Court, noticing that the appellant’s aged parents were waiting in the Court, took up the matter for hearing.
On 13.08.2025 the appellant’s counsel was asked to submit written synopsis with reference to the circumstances of the case relied on by the prosecution along with the particulars of the witnesses and documents corresponding to such circumstances. Having taken time to submit the same, he has not filed such synopsis. Still showing leniency, matter was taken up for hearing.
Learned counsel failed to argue to the point. When queries were raised, he alleged that the Trial Court has passed the judgment by “match fixing”. Despite advising him not to make such derogatory and baseless statements against the Trial Court and that such conduct amounts to contempt of Court, he persists. 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. Therefore, place the matter before Hon’ble The Chief Justice for needful action.
List after 10 days.”
2. This matter was listed on 10.09.2026 when accused/contemnor submitted that he would file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for his conduct and writing the letter in question.
3. Today when the matter is taken up, the contemnor states that he would like to contest the contempt proceedings and he is not willing to tender unconditional apology for his conduct.
4. In his statement of objections to the notice in this contempt case in paragraph-13 he has stated as under:
“13. I further submit that exhibit in (A) are false fabricated, forged and created only for the purpose of falsely implicated me in this Criminal contempt case, The entire case of this Criminal Contempt is totally false and it has been fabricated of the complainant to see that I do not continue as the Advocate for the appellant side in Criminal Appeal 1054/2018 pending before the Hon’ble division bench at High Court of Karnataka At Bengaluru.”
5. Thus, according to him the order passed by this Court on 15.09.2025 which is the basis for initiating Suo Moto contempt proceedings against the accused/contemnor is false, fabricated and forged order created only for the purposes of falsely implicated him in the criminal contempt case. He has further stated that the entire criminal contempt proceedings are false based on the fabrication so that he should not continue as advocate for the appellant. Thus, he has imputed the motives for passing the order dated 15.09.2025 which he says as false, fabricated and forged.
6. We have considered the response to the notice issued to him as well as the order dated 15.09.2025, we frame the following charges against the accused/contemnor.
CHARGES
1) You the contemnor on 13.08.2025 during the course of hearing of the Criminal Appeal No. 1054/2018, said that the trial Court had passed the judgment by “match fixing” and despite the Court warning you, you persisted to make allegation that the trial Court had passed the judgment by “match fixing”. Your utterances in the Court during the course of hearing of the Criminal Appeal No. 1054/2018 on 13.08.2015 that the judgment passed by the trial Court was by “match fixing” amounts to scandalizing the Court proceedings and tends to lower the authority of the Court, which would amount to committing criminal contempt of the Court.
2) In your response to the contempt notice, in your statement of objection, you in paragraph 13 of the statement of objection have alleged that the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1054/2018 is a false, fabricated and forged and passed/created only for the purpose to falsely implicate you in the criminal contempt case. The entire criminal contempt proceedings are false and fabricated. The said statement made by you on oath is again amounts to criminal contempt, which has tendency to scandalize the Court proceedings and lower the authority and respect of the Court.
7. We have asked the contender to make his submission on these two charges.
8. We put these charges to the contemnor to offer his defence. However he submits that “match fixing” is in respect of the Investigating Officer and Public Prosecutor. This is not the stand which he has taken in the statement of objections filed to the notice issued to him in the contempt proceedings. With respect to his allegation in charge No.2, in respect of the order passed by this Court on 15.09.2025 in Crl.A.No.1054/2018 (C), he submits that it is a typo mistake, however he has not offered any apology least to say an unconditional apology. We therefore, find both the charges proved against him.
9. Considering the misconduct and his demeanor before the Court, we sentence the accused/contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
The accused/contemnor shall be taken to custody forthwith to serve the sentence.
Registrar (Judicial) shall issue conviction warrant against the accused as per Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981.
Registry shall furnish a free copy of this order to the accused/contemnor, immediately.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Bar Council for taking appropriate proceedings whether he is fit to continue his profession or not.
