Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, June 27,
In a sharp and uncompromising tone, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to accept an apology tendered by Dhairya Sushant and another respondent in a suo motu criminal contempt case, stating that apologies cannot serve as a shield after scandalizing the judiciary. The Court made it clear that the apology lacked sincerity, regret, or repentance and termed it a mere tactic to dodge accountability.
The contempt case stems from a video posted on social media by Dhairya Sushant in which he made direct and serious allegations against the High Court and a sitting judge. The remarks, described by the Court as scandalous and contemptuous, included accusations of judicial bias, favouritism, and connivance with criminals. “This is the height of the degradation of the judicial system,” Sushant stated in the video, while also accusing the judiciary of protecting drug dealers and obstructing justice.
The Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja took suo motu cognizance of the video and found that it attracted the provisions of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. After giving repeated opportunities to the respondents to respond and tender an explanation, the High Court was finally presented with an “unconditional apology” on June 25, 2025—only after the Court indicated it was about to frame formal charges.
Rejecting the apology, Justice Chauhan remarked, “We are sorry to say, we cannot subscribe to the ‘slap–say sorry–and forget’ school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence.” The Court held that the apology was not rooted in real contrition, but appeared to be a defensive legal maneuver aimed at evading punishment.
The Court noted that throughout the proceedings, the respondents made no genuine effort to apologise or express remorse. Even in their written reply, they failed to accept that their statements were contemptuous, instead vaguely stating that they withdraw “any words or gestures that the Hon’ble Court finds contemptuous.”
Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments, the bench emphasized that an apology in a contempt case must be timely, sincere, and reflective of genuine remorse. The order added, “An apology is not a weapon of defence, nor a universal panacea. It is evidence of real contriteness, which is glaringly absent in this case.”
The High Court concluded that the apology offered was a paper apology lacking the moral and legal weight required to purge contempt. Observing that the dignity of the judiciary cannot be compromised, the Court directed that the matter be listed on July 16, 2025, for framing of charges, and ordered both respondents to be personally present.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
