2026:HHC:30746-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrOPC No. 1 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.7.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Court on its own motion ……...Petitioner Versus Dhairya Sushant and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General (through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate. Respondents present in person. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Taking cognizance of a video uploaded by respondent No. 1 on his Facebook account, Hindi and English transcriptions whereof contained in the video as also pen drive containing the same, came to be placed before this Court along with the paper book, this Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings and vide order dated 03.03.2025 issued show cause notice under Section 15 of the Act against the respondents in Form 'A' of Contempt of Court Rules, 1996, calling upon them as to why they should not be prosecuted and punished for their having deliberately and willfully committed criminal contempt. While passing the aforesaid order, this Court specifically directed the Registry of this Court to supply a complete copy of 2026:HHC:30746-DB 2 the paper book to the learned Advocate General, enabling him to render proper assistance to this Court. 2. On 25.06.2025, this Court heard the arguments of both the sides on pre-charge and reserved its order. While parties were heard on pre-charge, it only came to be argued at the behest of the respondents that an apology was tendered at the time of arguments on pre-charge, however, this Court rejected the apology and concluded that the apology tendered herein is nothing but a paper apology, which, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be accepted. While making the aforesaid observations, this Court also concluded that had the respondents been sincere and honest, they would have made all endeavors to have apologized at the earliest given opportunity and the apology in the instant case does not appear to be sincere and cannot be accepted, as we do not see any remorse, regret, much less repentance, rather, we are convinced that it is a device adopted by the respondents to escape the rigors of law. 3. Vide order dated 27.06.2025, this Court posted the matter for 16.7.2025 for framing of charges, with direction to both the respondents to remain present before the Court, however, before charges could be framed, respondents tendered fresh unconditional apology expressing remorse and regret with regard to the incident. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, after having carefully 2026:HHC:30746-DB 3 perused the unconditional apology accompanied by the affidavits of both the respondents, submitted that on account of unconditional apology tendered by respondents, this Court may take a lenient view and drop the contempt proceedings. They also submitted that though respondents have committed grave contempt of this Court by making most disrespectful and scandalous statements, but yet this Court, taking note of the fact that respondent No. 1 is a young practicing lawyer having long career ahead, and outstanding contribution of respondent No. 2 to the society in the capacity of his having served the State as Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, may show grace and magnanimity by dropping the contempt proceedings. They further submitted that bare perusal of the apology tendered by the respondents clearly reveals that they have admitted their guilt without hiding anything, with a further undertaking to not repeat such act in future. They submitted that though the respondents, being responsible persons having vast knowledge of law, were not expected to indulge in such kind of activity, but it appears that they, being hurt on account of delay in investigation of the complaint lodged by them with regard to apprehension of accused who allegedly committed theft in their house, coupled with the fact that they, in one capacity or another, had been part of the justice delivery system at one point of time, got panicked and disturbed and made utterances which, by no stretch of imagination, could be expected from a man of prudence. 2026:HHC:30746-DB 4 5. Learned Advocate General further submitted that otherwise also, the very purpose and object of contempt proceedings is not to punish the contemnor; rather its sole purpose is to ensure that the sheen and dignity of the Court is protected as well as judicial orders, are not flouted. While stating that no doubt repeat offenders who are in the habit of scandalizing judicial proceedings as well as Court orders are required to be taught a lesson by punishing them, but where this Court is satisfied that the contemptuous act of the person against whom contempt proceedings are initiated was not willful, rather on account of dissatisfaction with the outcome of the proceedings, coupled with the fact that no similar act was committed in the past, Court can always take a lenient view. 6. Besides filing unconditional apology accompanied by affidavits, respondents who are present before this Court also expressed their remorse and stated that in future, they shall not commit such mistake. They also stated before this Court that after having uploaded the video, they themselves remained upset and made all endeavors and efforts to meet the concerned Judge against whom they had made totally uncalled-for utterances, but they could not muster courage to do the same and they want to express their remorse and tender an apology to the concerned Judge, with an undertaking that in future they would be more cautious and respectful towards Court and judicial proceedings. 2026:HHC:30746-DB 5 7. Having heard learned Advocate General and learned counsel representing the respondents and perused material available on record, this court finds that prior to filing of unconditional apology dated 29.04.2026 duly supported by affidavits, respondents had submitted an apology dated 26.05.2025, but this court rejected the same and proceeded to fix the matter for framing of charge. If order dated 27.06.2025 is perused in its entirety, it reveals that on 21.05.2025, though respondents had filed reply, but after it was pointed out by the court that the apology tendered in reply was conditional, their counsel requested that reply filed on behalf of respondents be treated as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. The prayer was acceded to and the respondents were thereafter granted a week’s further time to file reply and matter was ordered to be listed on 28.05.2025. On 28.05.2025, respondents prayed for adjournment on the ground that mother of learned Senior Advocate representing them was indisposed and as such, matter was ordered to be listed on 25.06.2025. 8. On 25.06.2025 respondents were asked to show cause why charges be not framed against them. The only answer given by them was that now they have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, therefore, instant proceedings be dropped. It is apparent from the perusal of zimini orders passed by this court from time to time that till passing of order dated 25.06.2025, respondents made no effort whatsoever to tender the apology and even apology tendered on that day was not such, which 2026:HHC:30746-DB 6 could be considered genuine, as there was no element of remorse, regret much less repentance, rather this court found the same to be a devise adopted by respondents to escape the rigors of law, as such, same was rejected and matter was adjourned to 16.07.2025 for framing of charges. 9. However, as has been noticed hereinabove, before charges could be framed, fresh apology dated 29.04.2026 came to be filed, showing great remorse for the act of contempt committed by respondents. Subsequent apology tendered on 29.04.2026, if perused in its entirety, reveals that respondents while admitting their guilt have honestly owned each and everything said by them in the video uploaded on Facebook. Both the respondents have tendered their sincere, unconditional and unqualified apology for any words, expressions, gestures, or statements made in the live video broadcast by respondent No. 1 on his social media account. While acknowledging with utmost humility and sincerity that the “words” and “expressions” used in the live video broadcast including but not limited to, statements questioning the conduct of the Presiding Judge in the bail matter, expressions reflecting a perception of judicial connivance, allegation of nexus between drug dealers, lawyers and judicial officers and statements made in a manner unbecoming of an officer of this Court, respondents have admitted that they were inappropriate, unrestrained, excessive and unworthy of the high standard expected of an advocate and responsible citizen. They themselves have admitted that certain portion of the video, if 2026:HHC:30746-DB 7 viewed in entirety, has the tendency and effect of lowering the authority of this Court in the eye of the public and may be construed as scandalizing and undermining the dignity of the judicial institution. 10. While fairly admitting their mis-conduct as has been noticed hereinabove, they have stated that same was the outcome of a spontaneous and overwhelming emotional outburst caused by extreme, prolonged and distressing personal crisis faced by the respondents and their family, which was subjected to brutal and armed robbery/theft by 11 to 12 persons, who broke open doors and safe locks using electric cutters, swords, and sharp weapons, and decamped with jewelry, silver utensils, cash, coins, agricultural equipment, and other valuables worth approximately Rs.11.00 lakh. 11. 11. Having taken note of the contents of the video uploaded by respondent No. 1 on his Facebook account coupled with their admission made through unconditional apology tendered by way of affidavit, this court is fully convinced that an attempt has been made by respondents to cause irreparable damage to the institution of judiciary as a whole and particularly to Hon’ble Judge of this court, who had been discharging his duties with utmost honesty and sincerity. “Words” and “expressions” used in the video were not only inappropriate, unrestrained and excessive, but have the tendency and effect of undermining the authority of the court of law in general public and can be construed to be scandalizing and 2026:HHC:30746-DB 8 undermining the dignity of judicial institution. Though for their misconduct, respondents are required to be dealt with in accordance with law, but since they have tendered unconditional apology for their misconduct and have also not made an attempt to hoodwink this court by twisting the facts, rather they have owned whatever they stated in the video, this court at the first instance needs to determine whether unconditional apology can be accepted in given facts and circumstances of case or not. 12. By now it is well settled that an apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the first instance because a belated apology hardly shows the "contrition", which is the essence of purging of the contempt. Even if apology is not belated, but court finds the same to be without real contrition and remorse, it can refuse to accept. Hon’ble Apex Court in L.D. Jaikwan vs. State of U.P. (1984) 3 SCC 405, has categorically held that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor it is intended to operate as a universal panacea, rather it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. 13. While elaborating upon concept of apology, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari vs. Hiralal Somabhat Contractor, AIR 2023 SC 4390 held that over a period of time, the courts have shown undue leniency and magnanimity towards the contemnors and this lenient attitude shown by courts over a period of time has actually 2026:HHC:30746-DB 9 emboldened unscrupulous litigants to disobey or commit breach of the order passed by any court or any undertaking given to the court with impunity. While making aforesaid observations, Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that there ought not to be a tendency by courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness. 14. While taking note of its earlier judgment passed in T. N. Godavarma Thirmulpad as Ashok Khot & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 207, Hon’ble Apex Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai (supra) observed that saying ‘sorry’ does not make the slapper poorer, nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward. 15. In Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others (2013) 11 SCC 404, Hon’ble Apex Court held that tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at the very initial 2026:HHC:30746-DB 10 stage of proceeding being bona fide and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the court to accept such apology if this would not leave a serious scar on the dignity and authority of the court and interfere with the administration of justice and the honor of the court. While interpreting expression "bona fide", Hon’ble Apex Court held that it cannot be understood in abstract, rather attendant circumstances, behavior of the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with the court in deciding such an issue. Where persistently, a person has attempted to overreach the process of court and has persisted with the illegal act done in willful violation to the orders of the court, it will be difficult for the court to accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings. Most importantly, in afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that facts which will weigh with the court while considering acceptance of an apology are the contumacious conduct, the extent to which the order of the court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part of contemnor and the degree of interference in administration of justice, which may cause prejudice to other parties. An apology tendered even at the outset has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of repentance and sincere regret on the part of the contemnor. 16. No doubt in the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that in past also respondents have indulged in such kind of misconduct, rather 2026:HHC:30746-DB 11 both the respondents on account of their being legal practitioner and Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, have been contributing in one way or other in the administration of justice. It is also not in dispute that unconditional apology supported by affidavit dated 29.04.2026 suggests contrition, which is the essence of purging of contempt. As has been taken note hereinabove, by way of filing aforesaid affidavit, maybe at belated stage but before framing of charges, respondents have not only admitted their guilt, but have also owned each and everything honestly, without there being an attempt to justify their conduct. 17. This court, while considering prayer of the respondents to accept their unconditional apology, also cannot lose sight of the fact that irreparable damage has been caused to the institution of judiciary as well as reputation of Hon’ble Judge by uploading of the video, but having taken note of observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Yatin Narendra Oza vs. Suo Motu High Court of Gujarat and another 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 485, wherein it came to be held that court's magnanimity is unparalleled; it is testament to the measured patience of the court that justice must be tempered with mercy, this Court is inclined to consider the prayer made by respondents to accept their unconditional apology, who on account of their having vast experience in public life, are presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme, orders of court are to be obeyed 2026:HHC:30746-DB 12 implicitly and courts should not be trifled with. Any attempt to undermine the majesty of the court is derogatory to the very dignity of the court and administration of justice. A person who attempts to salvage himself by showing ignorance of court's order, of which he otherwise had the knowledge, would again be deemed to have made an attempt to circumvent the process of law. Admittedly, in the case at hand, wisdom of tendering unconditional apology dawned belatedly on the proposed contemnor, but certainly their apology tendered by affidavit dated 29.04.2026 clearly reveals that respondents have great remorse and repentance for their misconduct. Courts are expected to draw a balance between cases where tendering of an apology is sufficient and cases where it is necessary to inflict punishment on the contemnor. In case, after examining, court finds the apology tendered to be bona fide when examined in the light of attending circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the same, but if it appears to court that attempt is being made to hoodwink the court, it can straightaway reject the same and punish the proposed contemnor. 18. Venerable Justice Felix Frankfurter once remarked, "Contempt power is the means by which courts vindicate their authority and preserve the majesty of law." Though contemnor's initial defiance struck at the core of this principle, however, in keeping with the tradition of balancing justice with mercy, this court recognizes that a sincere effort to make amends, 2026:HHC:30746-DB 13 even if delayed, should not be rendered meaningless. Though wisdom dawned only after rejection of qualified apology, this court is mindful of philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi that "the duty of forgiveness requires us to weigh repentance more than wrong." In that spirit, and considering the contemnors’ eventual unreserved submission to the court's authority, this court deems it appropriate to accept the apology and close these proceedings. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2025 titled Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion, while interpreting Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, held that although Section 12 of Act bears the marginal note "punishment for contempt of court", a holistic reading of the provision indicates that it contemplates not merely the imposition of punishment, but also the power to remit the same. The proviso and explanation to Section 12 recognize that where the contemnor expresses genuine remorse and tenders an apology to the satisfaction of the court, he may be discharged or the sentence awarded may be remitted. Even after a finding of guilt and the imposition of punishment, the court retains the discretion to exercise such power. Once repentance is demonstrated, the court may act with magnanimity. However, an apology must be bona fide and must satisfy the judicial conscience of the court, which is required to exercise this discretion judicially. 2026:HHC:30746-DB 14 20. Before parting, this court wishes to observe that judicial patience must never be mistaken for weakness. The power to punish for contempt, though used with restraint, remains a vital safeguard of judicial integrity. The magnanimity extended today is not an indulgence, but a testament to the court's enduring faith in the redeemability of those who serve the law. Considering unconditional apology tendered to be genuine, we hope and trust that no tweet or social media post undermining the dignity of judiciary shall be posted in future on social media by the respondents. Any attempt to tarnish the image of judiciary at the behest of respondents will invite prompt and firm action. 21. Accordingly, the instant criminal contempt petition is disposed of, with a caution to the respondents to be more cautious and respectful while dealing with judicial proceedings. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge July 27, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge