Contempt Proceedings Initiated Against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas by Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Overview

On January 2, 2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh initiated contempt of court proceedings against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. (SAM), one of India’s leading law firms, for allegedly misquoting a 2010 judgment in a legal notice.

The legal notice in question, dated April 18, 2022, was found to contain references that misrepresented the scope and meaning of the High Court’s judgment in the case concerning the Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project. The Court held that the misquoting amounted to a prima facie case of criminal contempt for undermining judicial authority.

---

Key Case Details

Case	SPAS v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Contempt Proceedings Initiated	January 2, 2025
Judge	Justice Rahul Bharti
Legal Notice Date	April 18, 2022
Writ Petition Dismissal	SPAS petition dismissed for lack of locus

---

Background

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a petition filed by Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS) challenging a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Corporation (JKPDC) and National Hydro Electric Project (NHPC). SPAS alleged that it had an existing agreement with JKPDC, which the MoU undermined.

The High Court dismissed SPAS’s writ petition, citing lack of standing (locus). However, the legal notice sent by SAM allegedly misrepresented the 2010 judgment to assert that the court had previously upheld SPAS’s contractual standing – an interpretation the court found inaccurate and misleading.

---

Court’s Observations

Justice Bharti, while issuing the contempt notice, remarked:

“The misquoting of the judgment of the High Court by none other than a reputed law firm is a serious matter… amounting to criminal contempt undermining the administration of justice.”

The order highlighted that the 2010 judgment had never adjudicated on contractual relationships but instead dealt with questions of judicial review and government action under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

---

Representation

• For Petitioners (SPAS): Senior Advocate CM Koul with Advocates Arshad Hussain and AR Bhat.
• For the Union Territory of J&K: Advocate General DC Raina and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta.
• For JKSPDC and NHPC: Senior Advocate PN Raina with Advocates JA Hamal and AP Singh.

The Court issued a notice directing Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. to appear in person and explain the basis of their legal notice.

---

Key Takeaways

• This case underscores the importance of accuracy in legal representation and the serious consequences of misrepresenting judicial pronouncements.
• The decision reflects the High Court’s commitment to preserving judicial integrity and preventing attempts to manipulate legal processes.
• Legal professionals are reminded to exercise due diligence when citing precedents to avoid contempt charges.

---

Also Read:

• National Moot Court Competition by University of Allahabad
• NLS BA (Hons) Programme by National Law School of India University
• Join the Legal Team at Little & Co.
• 15-Day Online Short-Term Course on Forensic Sciences and Law by Mar Gregorios College of Law
• The Curious Case of a Curative: DMRC v. DAMEPL by NUJS Law Review