Orissa High Court Threatens Contempt Action Against SP for Comments on Sub Judice Election Case

The Court has demanded an explanation from the Berhampur Superintendent of Police for publicly linking a pending election petition to a high-profile murder investigation, calling the conduct 'disturbing' and 'entirely unwarranted'.

CUTTACK, Odisha – The Orissa High Court has taken a stern stance on the principle of judicial sanctity, signalling potential contempt of court proceedings against a senior police official for his public remarks concerning a pending election petition. In an order dated October 31, 2025, a single-judge bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra expressed "serious dissatisfaction" and demanded a formal explanation from Dr. Saravana Vivek M., the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Berhampur.

The controversy stems from the SP's press conference last week, where he briefed the media on the investigation into the murder of Advocate Pitabash Panda. The SP allegedly drew a direct line between the criminal conspiracy leading to the advocate's murder and an ongoing election petition, Manoj Kumar Panda v. K. Anil Kumar (ELPET No. 19 of 2024), which is currently sub judice before Justice Mishra's bench.

The court's intervention followed submissions made during the hearing of the election petition itself, where the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Panda, detailed alarming allegations of police intimidation. This convergence of alleged police overreach—both in public commentary and private action—has set the stage for a significant judicial examination of the boundaries between law enforcement duties and the administration of justice.

Allegations of Illegal Detention and Intimidation

The matter was brought to the forefront when the election-petitioner, Manoj Kumar Panda, filed an affidavit detailing a harrowing experience with the local police. He alleged that on October 22, 2025, three plain-clothed police personnel forcibly detained him in a police vehicle and held him at a police barrack for two days until October 24.

During this alleged illegal detention, Panda claims he was interrogated specifically about the election petition he had filed against the incumbent Berhampur MLA, K. Anil Kumar of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The line of questioning reportedly focused on his motivations for challenging the election result. The High Court has taken this affidavit on record and directed that a copy be served to the Additional Government Advocate to seek instructions from the state authorities, indicating the gravity with which it views these claims.

The SP's Press Conference: A "Disturbing" Development

The core of the court's ire, however, was directed at the SP's public statements. Counsel drew the court's attention to a news report from October 23, which quoted the SP from a press conference regarding the murder of Advocate Pitabash Panda, a member of the Odisha State Bar Council who was shot dead on October 6.

In the press briefing, the SP reportedly stated that the election petition served as a "common link" in the murder conspiracy, connecting the main accused, former BJD MLA Bikram Panda, with the petitioner's employer. The SP further claimed that the former MLA was funding the legal expenses for the election case.

Justice Mishra, upon being apprised of these statements, made a pointed observation from the bench, which was subsequently recorded in the court's order.

“If true, it is indeed disturbing to observe that a Police Officer as Senior as the S.P. chose to publicly comment on an ongoing election dispute before this Court,” he remarked.

The situation was exacerbated by submissions from senior counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent, who informed the court that a video of the press conference was available. They alleged that in the video, the SP went beyond merely linking the cases and was "seen commenting on the possible outcome of the Election Petition, which is entirely unwarranted.”

The Specter of Contempt of Court

The act of commenting on the merits, evidence, or potential outcome of a case pending before a court—a matter that is sub judice —is a well-established ground for contempt of court. Such actions are seen as having the potential to prejudice the proceedings, influence judicial decision-making, and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

In issuing its order, the High Court invoked its inherent power to protect its proceedings from external interference. Justice Mishra framed the issue as a direct challenge to the court's authority, posing a critical question to the SP.

“This court therefore deems it proper to call for an explanation from the S.P., Berhampur… as to under what circumstances and for what reason he gave the aforesaid statement, especially when this Court is ceased of the election case. He shall also explain as to why such conduct shall not be treated as contempt of this court,” the order states.

The SP has been directed to file his explanation by November 7, 2025, when the matter will be taken up again.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

This case touches upon several critical legal principles that are foundational to the rule of law:

1. The Sub Judice Rule: The principle that refrains public discussion of cases under adjudication is not merely a procedural nicety but a substantive safeguard for a fair trial. The SP's alleged commentary, particularly on the "possible outcome," represents a textbook example of what the rule is designed to prevent.

2. Separation of Powers: The incident raises questions about the roles and boundaries of the executive (police) and the judiciary. While the police have a duty to investigate crime and inform the public, this duty does not extend to offering public analysis or predictions on active court cases, a function reserved exclusively for the judiciary.

3. Protection of Litigants: The petitioner's allegations of illegal detention, if proven true, constitute a grave infringement of fundamental rights and an attempt to intimidate a citizen for accessing a legal remedy. The court's prompt action in taking the affidavit on record underscores its role as a protector of these rights against executive overreach.

For the legal community, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in policing the conduct of other state actors. The court's willingness to initiate contempt proceedings against a high-ranking police officer sends a strong message that interference with the judicial process, whether overt or subtle, will not be tolerated. The outcome of the SP's explanation on November 7 will be keenly watched by legal professionals across the state, as it will set a significant precedent on the accountability of law enforcement in a constitutional democracy.

---

The election petition was filed by Manoj Kumar Panda challenging the election of K. Anil Kumar. Mr. Gopal Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate, represents the petitioner, while Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate, appears for the respondent MLA.