SHANMUGAM @ LAKSHMINARAYANAN versus HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 01-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 100 : 2025 INSC 619
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan 
v. 
High Court of Madras 
(Criminal Appeal No. 5245 of 2024) 
02 May 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the charge of criminal contempt is proved against the 
appellants-contemnors beyond all reasonable doubt; whether the 
conviction of the appellants by the High Court for criminal contempt 
of Court and the sentence imposed ought to be upheld.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.15(1) r/w 18(1) – In 
Execution Petition filed by the decree holder, contemnors 
produced interim orders passed by the High Court staying 
the decree  – On verification it was found that the said 
orders were fraudulently created by committing forgery and 
impersonation in the name of the Judge of the High Court – 
High Court held the appellants responsible in preparation of 
the bogus High Court interim orders and held them guilty of 
contempt – Correctness:
Held: When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court 
which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on 
persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of 
the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient 
to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether 
he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication – High 
Court initiated suo motu contempt on proved and admitted 
facts that Contemnor No.3 produced fake interim orders of the 
High Court and the same were prepared by Contemnor No.4  
and 7 – On facts, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt 
that the appellants-contemnors have either used or created fake 
High Court interim orders – It is not a case of mere probability of 
commission of offence rather it is a proved case of commission 
* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
101
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras
of offence – Creating fake orders of the Court is one of the 
most dreaded acts of contempt of court – It not only thwarts the 
administration of justice, but it has inbuilt intention by committing 
forgery of record  – Charge of contempt proved against the 
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed, 
however, the sentence is modified from simple imprisonment for 
six months to simple imprisonment for one month – Penal Code, 
1860 – ss.466, 468, 471. [Paras 8, 16, 17]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.20 – Limitation for actions 
for contempt – Originating point for calculating the period of 
limitation, as interpreted in Pallav Sheth’s case – Appellant 
pleaded that the entire contempt proceeding was barred by 
limitation since it should have been initiated within one year 
from date of production of fake interim orders i.e. 18.04.2018 
however, the notice was issued after four years in 2022:
Held: Contempt action must be initiated either by filing of an 
application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu within a period 
of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have 
been committed – The writ petition for initiation of action against 
the appellants was filed by the Decree Holder on 20.08.2018 i.e. 
immediately after four months from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders 
were produced before the Court – On facts, it was on 05.09.2018 
when the contempt proceedings were drawn by the High Court 
though actual notice was issued later on by the Division Bench in 
the year 2022 as the case bundle of writ petition was missing in 
the Registry of the High Court – However, it does not mean that 
the contempt was initiated in the year 2022 – As held in Pallav 
Sheth case, s.20 has to be construed in a manner which would 
avoid such an anomaly and concluded that the date of initiation 
of suo motu contempt action is regarded as the initiation by the 
Court for the purpose of s.20 – Therefore, initiation of contempt 
action shall be treated to have been taken on 05.09.2018 when 
Single Judge dealing with the writ petition so directed and this date 
being within one year from 17.04.2018 when the fake orders were 
presented before the Court, the present contempt action was not 
barred by limitation. [Paras 14, 15]
Contempt of Court – Exercise of power – Object:
Held: The sole object of the Court wielding its power to punish 
for contempt is always for maintaining the purity of administration 
102
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of justice – Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice 
than to preserve their proc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.