If a judge of a subordinate court can be held liable for contempt of their own court, the same principle should apply to a judge of the High Court and the Supreme Court. If a High Court judge acts contemptuously and commits contempt of their own court, then, like a subordinate court judge, they should also be liable for contempt.
​The current legal position is that subordinate judges are liable for contempt of their own courts, whereas Supreme Court and High Court judges are not. A High Court or Supreme Court judge can do anything from the seat of justice without being held in contempt, leaving them accountable to no one. Therefore, the principle should be that if a High Court judge does something wholly unbecoming of their office and the seat of justice, they ought to be held guilty of contempt of their own court.
​Suppose a High Court judge throws papers at a lawyer, throws a brief down, or abuses someone using unparliamentary language—which happens quite often. While this may not occur every day, there are many instances of it. I have personally witnessed cases where a judge, from the seat of justice, used abusive and unparliamentary words against lawyers and litigants, and even threatened them. Should they be immune from contempt? “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts cannot be an exception to this fundamental principle. Sadly, the Kerala High Court dismissed my plea and held that judges of the superior courts are not liable for contempt. I have challenged the judgment under Article 136, and the Registry is yet to list the matter despite my repeated requests over the last nine months.