In Re: N. Peddi Raju 2025 INSC 989 - S. 406 CrPC - Judiciary - Advocates - Contempt

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 406 - Merely on the basis that a petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer the proceedings from the High Court of that State to the High Court of another State. (Para 14) - Trend amongst lawyers to criticize the Judges of the High Court or the Trial Court for no reason - It has also become a recurring trend that whenever the matter involves a political figure in a particular State, to allege that in that State a litigant may not get justice and therefore, transfer of the proceedings from that State to any other State is sought. Such practices cannot be countenanced. (Para 11)

Contempt of Court - To imply that because a political figure is involved in a case, and therefore, a holder of such a high constitutional office would not act independently, in our view, scandalizes the very institution of administration of justice. (Para 13)

Advocates - When a lawyer is faced with a conflict between his duty towards the Court and duty towards the client, he has to give preference to duty to the Court rather than duty to the client. (Para 10)

Judiciary - The Judges of the High Court are in no way inferior to the Judges of the Supreme Court. Though, as an appellate Court to the High Court, this Court can affirm, reverse, modify or set aside the judgment of the High Court, it has no administrative control, either over the administration of the High Court or the Judges of the High Court. The Judges of the High Court are also Constitutional functionaries, and they enjoy the same immunity as is enjoyed by a Judge of the Supreme Court. (Para 12)