MP High Court Closes Criminal Contempt Against BJP MLA For Contacting Judge; Issues Stern Warning
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has closed criminal contempt proceedings initiated against BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak for attempting to contact a sitting High Court judge in connection with a writ petition relating to allegations of illegal mining by three companies allegedly owned by him. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 291]The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has closed criminal contempt proceedings initiated against BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak for attempting to contact a sitting High Court judge in connection with a writ petition relating to allegations of illegal mining by three companies allegedly owned by him. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 291]
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal accepted Pathak's unconditional apology, while holding that his conduct amounted to criminal contempt. However, the Court found that the contempt was not of such a nature as to substantially interfere with the due course of justice and therefore did not warrant punishment.
It observed,
"In view of the above finding, the contemnor should be punished or fined, or both, or his unconditional apology is liable to be accepted. We are satisfied that the contempt is not of such a nature that it did substantially interfere with the due course of justice; Vide order dated 6.4.2026, this Court has already permitted him to submit an unconditional apology. Hence, we are inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by him. However, we put a note of caution that a contemnor, who is Member of legislation, is expected not to repeat such an act and should be careful in future. Hence, we hereby accept unconditional apology with the warning to the contemnor not to repeat this conduct in future".
The contempt proceedings stemmed from a writ petition filed by Ashutosh Dixit, seeking a direction to the authorities to conclude an enquiry into his complaint alleging illegal mining by three companies allegedly owned by Pathak. Pathak was not a respondent in that writ petition.
When the matter came up before Justice Vishal Mishra on September 1, 2025, the Judge recused from hearing the case after recording, "Mr. Sanjay Pathak has made an attempt to call me to have discussion regarding this particular matter; therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition."
Thereafter, Ashutosh Dixit filed another writ petition seeking action against Pathak for attempting to contact the Judge. On April 2, a Division Bench took cognizance of the matter to initiate criminal contempt proceedings and disposed of Dixit's petition.
Dixit was, however, aggrieved with the disposal of the writ petition, as he had sought other reliefs, seeking investigation, etc. Therefore, he approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order, to the extent his petition was disposed of without considering other reliefs.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court permitted Dixit to approach the High Court seeking to be heard in suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against Pathak.
In the contempt case, the Court 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. Hence, the act of making call and sending a message by the contemnor comes under the definition of criminal contempt."
However, it also recorded Pathak's explanation that the call had been made by mistake, was immediately disconnected, and was followed only by an introductory message. However, it noted that he had not disputed the fact recorded in Justice Mishra's order and had admitted his mistake during the contempt proceedings.
Accordingly, the court noted that the MLA has admitted his mistake and accepted his apology.
Case Title: In Reference (Suo Motu Contempt) v Sanjay Satyendra Pathak CONCR-5-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 291
For Respondent: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Anil Khare with Advocates Siddharth Shukla and Shamila Imam Fatima
For Intervenor: Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat with Advocate Aryan Urmaliya