In a stern ruling underscoring the sanctity of judicial orders, the Supreme Court of India recently upheld the criminal contempt conviction of three individuals who used a forged court order to obstruct the execution of a civil court decree. The Court made it clear that even those who merely use fabricated judicial documents, regardless of whether they authored them, are liable for contempt of court.
(Shanmugam & Ors v. Madras High Court)
The Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the use of a forged order—particularly with the intent to derive illegal benefit—strikes at the very heart of judicial integrity. “Even if a person did not fabricate a court order, knowingly using such an order to obtain a benefit is enough to warrant contempt,” the Court ruled.
The case involved a 2004 civil court decree in Tamil Nadu concerning a rental dispute. When a trust sought to execute the decree, the tenants relied on a purported stay order from the Madras High Court. Investigations later revealed that the alleged stay order was never issued by the High Court and had been fabricated.
Contempt proceedings were initiated in 2018 by the Madras High Court. However, due to missing case records in the High Court’s registry, notices were only issued in 2022. Two of the accused died during the pendency of the case. The remaining three were convicted by the High Court and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment.
The convicts challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing—among other things—that the contempt action was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The apex court rejected this argument, affirming that the contempt action was initiated in 2018 and that the delay in issuing notice was due to administrative lapses, not legal inaction.
“Misplacing of case files in the High Court registry cannot render the court powerless in punishing a clear instance of contempt,” the Court observed. However, the Court showed some leniency by reducing the sentence from six months to one month of simple imprisonment.
The verdict sends a strong message on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and reinforces the principle that tampering with or misusing court documents—regardless of authorship—invites penal consequences.
