The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has formally closed suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against lawyer Deepak Khosla, following his submission of an unconditional apology and a voluntary charitable donation. The bench, presided over by Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra, determined that the respondent’s acknowledgment of his misconduct and his expression of genuine regret warranted the discharge of the contempt notice.

The contempt action arose from assertions made by Mr. Khosla within a separate application he had filed before the court. These assertions contained critical remarks directed at two sitting judges of the High Court. Upon reviewing the content of these submissions, the court formed the view that the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the respondent necessitated an immediate suo motu intervention to uphold the dignity of the judicial process.

During the proceedings, the court highlighted that the respondent’s comments were wholly unnecessary and lacked any legal justification. In response, Mr. Khosla provided an unconditional apology both in open court and through a formal affidavit, acknowledging that his prior contempt petition was limited to seven specific respondents and that there was no valid basis to target the presiding judges.

As a tangible gesture of his remorse, Mr. Khosla committed to a voluntary contribution of ₹1,00,000, designated for Mangal Jivan Healthcare Private Limited, a medical facility specializing in cancer treatment. The court accepted this donation as a component of the reconciliation process, ordering that the payment be processed through the High Court Registry.

The bench emphasized the necessity of maintaining respect for the judicial institution, noting that while the respondent’s affidavit was lengthy and occasionally attempted to justify his actions, the core of the submission was a clear expression of regret. The court stated, “Though, this apology is a bit lengthy and at times seeks to justify his conduct, nevertheless, the fact remains that the respondent No.1 has expressed his genuine regret and remorse in making assertions which were wholly unnecessary.”

Throughout the hearing, counsel representing the court’s interest argued that the apology might not be bona fide, citing previous contempt-related orders from other jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. However, Mr. Khosla contended that those orders were either currently stayed or had been set aside. The High Court bench maintained its focus on the specific matter before it, concluding that it was sufficiently satisfied with the current demonstration of regret.

The proceedings also addressed the status of a second respondent, who was noted to have acted on the legal advice provided by Mr. Khosla. With the acceptance of the apology from the lead respondent, the court found it appropriate to extend the same courtesy to the second respondent, effectively dropping the contempt charges against both individuals involved.

The judicial intervention underscores the high threshold the judiciary maintains regarding remarks aimed at the institutional integrity of the court. By requiring an affidavit of apology and a symbolic act of charity, the High Court managed the situation to ensure accountability without escalating the punitive measures against the legal practitioner. The court noted that it was satisfied that the respondent had “genuinely regretted the assertions that he had made in his application, which led to the initiation of the suo motu contempt proceedings.”

This resolution also impacts several other pending miscellaneous applications associated with the original contempt file. Consequent to the dropping of the main proceedings, the court directed that all ancillary applications filed under the main matter be disposed of immediately. The requirement for Mr. Khosla to donate to the healthcare entity serves as a practical conclusion to the dispute, framing the resolution as a corrective measure rather than a strictly penal one.

The case serves as a reminder of the procedural boundaries that govern filings in higher courts. The specific assertions extracted in the judgment—which questioned the impartiality of judicial decision-making and likened the court’s conduct to that of a ‘knight errant’—were treated as a significant breach of professional conduct. By addressing these claims directly, the court reaffirmed the standard for language used in legal pleadings, ensuring that even in the context of seeking redress, counsel must remain within the bounds of professional courtesy and objective criticism.

The donation to the cancer hospital provides a closure that focuses on public benefit, shifting the narrative from a conflict between a lawyer and the judiciary toward a constructive, albeit compelled, resolution. The registry will now oversee the transfer of the funds, marking the final administrative act in this contempt case. The court’s decision to accept the apology and dispose of the matter rests on the principle that judicial time is best served when such controversies are resolved through acknowledgment of error rather than extended litigation.

With the order now finalized, the case against Mr. Khosla and his co-respondent is fully concluded, and the records will reflect the court’s acceptance of the respondent’s regret. The High Court of Gujarat, through this order, has reaffirmed the authority of the bench to address conduct that challenges its functioning while remaining open to the closure of such matters when clear remorse is demonstrated by the concerned party. This decision establishes that while the court is firm in protecting its integrity, it retains the discretion to prioritize restorative justice when the circumstances allow for a genuine and unequivocal apology.