Karnataka High Court Sentences Advocate to 15 Days' Imprisonment for Contempt

Karnataka High Court Sentences Advocate to 15 Days' Imprisonment for Contempt Over Match-Fixing Allegation

The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru has sentenced advocate H.P. Sabjan to 15 days' simple imprisonment in a suo motu criminal contempt proceeding. A Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the order on September 18, 2026, after finding both charges framed against him proved beyond doubt.

The contempt case arose from statements Sabjan made during the hearing of a criminal appeal. The matter was registered as Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2026. According to the court's findings, Sabjan had alleged that a trial court judgment was the result of match fixing—a serious accusation that the bench determined constituted contempt of court. The specific nature of these statements, made during the course of arguing the criminal appeal, formed the basis of the charges brought against him.

Initial Offer to Apologise, Then Reversal

When the case was listed for hearing on September 10, 2026, Sabjan indicated his willingness to file an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his conduct and for a letter he had sent in connection with the matter. This initial stance suggested the possibility of a resolution without a finding of guilt. When the matter came up for hearing again, however, Sabjan reversed his position. He stated that he wanted to contest the contempt proceedings and was not willing to tender an unconditional apology.

This change in approach led him to file a statement of objections in which he made further allegations. Sabjan alleged that a September 15, 2025 order passed by the High Court was "false, fabricated and forged." He contended that the entire contempt proceeding had been fabricated with the specific intent to prevent him from continuing to act as the advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 2018. These counter-allegations did not succeed in persuading the bench.

The Bench's Finding

Despite Sabjan's objections and his assertion that the proceedings were motivated by a desire to remove him from the case, the Division Bench found the charges against him proved. The court did not accept his version of events or his suggestion that the contempt petition was a tool to obstruct his legal representation of his client. The bench's conclusion that both charges were established meant that Sabjan's statements about match fixing and his other conduct during the appeal hearing crossed the line from legitimate advocacy into contempt of court.

The sentence of 15 days' simple imprisonment is a moderate punishment within the range available to courts in contempt cases. Simple imprisonment, as opposed to rigorous imprisonment, is the lighter form of custodial punishment and is often imposed in cases where the contempt is not of the most serious nature or where mitigating circumstances exist.

Contempt Law and Judicial Integrity

Criminal contempt of court in India is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The law recognises that courts must maintain their authority and dignity, and that unfounded accusations against judges or judicial processes can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Yet the law also seeks to balance this with the right of advocates and citizens to criticise courts and judicial decisions in good faith.

The distinction between fair criticism and contemptuous conduct is a fine one. An advocate may legitimately argue that a judgment is wrong, that a judge has made an error, or that a particular decision is unjust. Such criticism, even if forceful or unsparing, does not ordinarily amount to contempt. When an advocate makes specific allegations of criminal conduct by a judge—such as alleging that a judgment was reached through match fixing—without any factual basis or evidence to support such a claim, the statement crosses into contempt.

Match fixing is a term borrowed from sports and refers to the predetermined outcome of a contest. To allege that a judicial judgment was the result of match fixing is to accuse the judge of deliberately deciding the case in a predetermined manner, typically for personal gain or benefit. Such an allegation, if made without evidence or proper foundation, strikes at the very heart of judicial integrity and the rule of law.

The Advocate's Defences Rejected

Sabjan's argument that the contempt proceeding was fabricated to remove him from representing his client in the criminal appeal was not accepted by the bench. This defence would have required the bench to believe that the court itself had engineered a false contempt case, which would be an extraordinary allegation. The bench's rejection of this defence suggests that it found Sabjan's statements were indeed contemptuous and that his attempt to reframe the proceedings as a conspiracy against him was without merit.

The fact that Sabjan initially offered to apologise but then withdrew that offer and chose to contest the matter may also have influenced the bench's approach. While an apology is not always a guarantee of leniency in contempt cases, a genuine and timely apology can sometimes result in a lighter sentence or even a discharge. By choosing to contest the charges and make further allegations against the court, Sabjan did not avail himself of this potential mitigation.