Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Writ Petition Seeking Intra-Court Appeal Against His Contempt Conviction

The Supreme Court today refused to hear a writ petition by Advocate Mathew J Nedumpara seeking directions to allow an intra-court appeal against his 2019 conviction in a criminal contempt case. The Court noted that a writ petition could not be maintainable for challenging a coordinate bench's decision. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition under Article 32. 

Notably, in 2019, a bench led by Justice RF Nariman held Nedumpara guilty of committing contempt.

At the outset, the CJI questioned whether a writ petition could be entertained for challenging a coordinate bench's decision. 

" Let us assume that today, my brother judge and I decide a matter today, we can allow the petition/ dismiss it. After some time, one of the parties can file a writ petition challenging our decision. Under which provision of law can such a writ petition be maintained? 

The CJI also mentioned he has, in the past, shared a bench with Justice Nariman as a junior judge, and it would not be appropriate for him to hear this matter. The CJI also asked the counsel whether a review petition was filed against the impugned decision. 

The main contention of Nedumpara, who appeared in person, was that, through the impugned decision, an attempt of 'character assassination' was made, which he said, "was something very painful". He added that the review petition was filed, but the court records of the review have been missing. 

To which, the CJI warned him not to make 'scandalous allegations against the Court' and asked why he did not write to the then CJI regarding this. 

Refusing to entertain the petition, the bench dismissed it on the grounds of maintainability. The order stated : 

"The petitioner, we are afraid, has been unable to explain the grounds of maintainability.  In our opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable; there arises no occasion to hear the petitioner with respect to the alleged merits of the case, petition is accordingly dismissed." 

The reliefs sought were: 

"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction or declaration, declaring that a person convicted for Criminal Contempt by this Honb'le Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019, including the Petitioner herein, would have a right to an intra-court appeal to be heard by a larger and different bench; and

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, framing rules and guidelines providing for intra-court appeal against conviction in this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2019 as referred in prayer (a) above; and

c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 191 of 2019 and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 are rendered null and void, being in gross violation of the fundamental doctrine of audi alteram partem inasmuch as the Petitioner was convicted for contempt of court entirely behind his back, without a notice, without a hearing, without a lawyer, in his absence, instituting a proceedings in chambers; and

d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 191 of 2019 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 (Annexure P-14) are rendered null and void, being in gross violation of the doctrine of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa or nemo iudex in sua causa; that Hon'ble Former Justice Rohinton Nariman ought not to have heard the case, for, the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done requires His Lordship to have recused from hearing the case as His Lordships father and the Petitioner were adversaries in Writ Petition No.2599 of 2019 before the Delhi High Court; and

e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and declare that the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 191 of 2019 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 (Annexure P-14) are rendered null and void, being in gross violation of the principle of Non refert quid notum sit judici, si notum non sit in forma judicii, namely, it matters not what is known to the Judge, if it be not known judicially, that no Judge should import his private knowledge of the facts into a case inasmuch as the Petitioner was convicted for contempt in the face of the Court relying on unrelated pending matters before the Bombay High Court; and

f) Treat the instant Petition under Article 32 R/w 129 & 142 of the Constitution as a Intra Court Appeal in terms of In Re: Vijay Kurle (2021) 13 SCC 549; and

g) Direct the instant petition to be listed along with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1053 of 2020;"

Case : Mathews J Nedumpara v. Supreme Court of India | WP(c) No. 592/2025