Supreme Court Rules Judges Cannot Be Held in Contempt for Decisions Contrary to Precedents and Legal Principles

Summary: The Supreme Court has clarified that judges cannot be subjected to contempt proceedings merely for delivering judgments that contravene established legal precedents and principles. A bench comprising Justices Sharanga Subedi and Meghraj Pokharel dismissed a contempt petition filed against two judges of the Patan High Court. The court emphasized that errors in law should be addressed through appeals rather than contempt actions.

Kathmandu, 25 May: The Supreme Court ruled that no judge can face contempt charges solely based on decisions that conflict with legal provisions or established precedents. A petition seeking contempt proceedings against two Patan High Court judges was admitted but ultimately rejected by a bench led by Justices Sharanga Subedi and Meghraj Pokharel. The court emphasized that legal errors should be rectified through proper appellate procedures, not contempt sanctions.

The controversy originated when law student Bibek Chaudhary of Nepal Law Campus questioned the methods employed by traffic police and filed a writ petition in the Patan High Court. Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling—which was viewed as violating precedent and judicial principles—Chaudhary submitted a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against Patan High Court Judges Rishiraj Bhandari and Gopal Prasad Banstola. He alleged that these judges issued an order contradicting precedent, particularly concerning traffic regulations.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the judges disrespected the court by disregarding legal principles. Chaudhary’s writ petition focused on the illegality of traffic police’s use of wheel locks on vehicles parked in prohibited zones, as stipulated under Section 164(1)(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Management Act, 1992 (2049 BS), which authorizes penalties but does not explicitly endorse wheel locking. Despite this, the High Court upheld the practice, leading Chaudhary to argue that the ruling violated legal principles and precedent, urging contempt proceedings against the bench.

In response, the Supreme Court reiterated that judicial errors or misapplications of precedent do not constitute contempt. It noted that international judicial practices and established legal doctrines support this view, underscoring that judicial independence must be preserved. The Court stated, “Even if a judge makes an error in interpreting the law, it does not warrant contempt proceedings.” It also cited the British precedent, explaining that errors in judgments are to be corrected through appeals, not contempt charges.

The Court further clarified that contempt actions require willful disobedience or deliberate disrespect towards court orders. Mere inadvertent or good-faith deviations from precedent cannot be grounds for contempt. The ruling clarified that precedents may have situational variations and that judicial discretion in selecting applicable legal principles should be respected.

India’s judicial system similarly treats misapplication of precedent as a judicial error rather than contempt. Upholding judicial independence as paramount, the Supreme Court highlighted that judges must remain free from accountability measures related to their decisions except through proper legal channels. This approach aligns with United Nations declarations recognizing judicial autonomy.

Regarding the case at hand, the Patan High Court’s ruling permitting wheel locking on unlawfully parked vehicles was characterized by the Supreme Court as amenable to appellate review. The Court emphasized that contempt is intended to ensure respect and enforcement of judicial orders, not to correct legal mistakes. Since alternatives like appeals remain available, contempt proceedings are inappropriate.

In sum, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that judges’ decisions—even if flawed legally—are not liable for contempt unless clear, intentional violation of court authority exists. This interpretation reaffirms the priority of judicial independence and correct legal procedure. The Court’s decision was rendered public recently, following a contempt petition filed on 2 April 2026 (19 Chaitra 2082 BS) against two judges.