Bombay High Court Judge Alleges Conspiracy By Lawyers To Frame Him, Directs Police Investigation

In a dramatic turn of events that underscores both the pressures faced by the judiciary and the integrity required to withstand them, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court has raised serious concerns over what he believes to be a deliberate attempt to frame him by advocates facing contempt proceedings.

 

The issue came to light during hearings related to Writ Petition No. 3707 of 2022, a maintenance dispute between Sabina Lakdawala and Feroze Y. Lakdawala. Despite multiple undertakings by the respondent to clear arrears, repeated breaches led to stern judicial action. Matters escalated on April 17, 2025, when Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, during a heated exchange, declared: "I am not the slave of the Court," an outburst the judge deemed contemptuous and part of a larger pattern of defiance.

 

What followed has shaken the legal fraternity. Justice Jamdar, in a detailed order dated April 29, 2025, recounted how Advocate Partho Sarkar had contacted his wife under the guise of a property enquiry through NoBroker. Despite being informed he was speaking with the wife of a sitting judge, Mr. Sarkar failed to disclose his identity as an advocate. The judge grew suspicious when the conversation—seemingly urgent and persistent—felt orchestrated.

 

Justice Jamdar stated, “It is very clear that an attempt is made to frame this Court... these things are made with an intention to humiliate and browbeat this Court and tarnish its image.” He viewed the timing and nature of the calls in the broader context of his earlier orders against Mr. Nedumpara and Mr. Vijay Kurle, both previously held guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court for scandalising the judiciary.

 

The Court recalled relevant precedents, including Mathews Nedumpara, In Re and Vijay Kurle, In Re, where the Supreme Court had noted systematic attempts to intimidate the bench. These references served to highlight that the current developments may not be isolated, but part of a continued campaign against judicial authority.

 

Taking the matter seriously, Justice Jamdar ordered the Malabar Hill Police Station to investigate the calls made by Advocate Sarkar on April 22, 23, 24, and an earlier one in October 2023. A report is to be submitted to the Registrar General within three weeks.

 

While Advocate Sarkar requested that the judge recuse himself from hearing related matters, Justice Jamdar cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sukhdev Singh Sadh v. S. Teja Singh, which permits a judge to proceed in contempt matters even if personally targeted, when dignity of the court is at stake. Nonetheless, showing both restraint and deference, he referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for reassignment.

 

This incident reveals the very real challenges judges face—not just in delivering justice, but in safeguarding the institution itself. In choosing to speak out and act decisively, Justice Jamdar has not only defended his own integrity but sent a strong message: the sanctity of the court cannot be shaken by intimidation.

AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube