Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – High Court found that the appellant-advocate along with 2-3 junior advocates entered the chamber of the CJM and misbehaved as well as attempted to assault him – Appellant was convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act – Appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days – Appellant was further directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship for six months and to remain under a constant watch of the District Judge for a period of two years – On appeal, held: Advocate in question acted contrary to the obligations – He has set a bad example before others while destroying the dignity of the Court and the Judge – Considering the nature of misconduct, while upholding the conviction for criminal contempt, the sentence of the appellant modified: (i) the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months suspended for a further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that appellant not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship for further period of 3 years in addition to what already undergone – In case of non-violation of aforesaid condition the sentence after 3 years to be remitted (ii) However, sentence of imprisonment to be activated, in case of breach of any condition by the concerned advocate during the period of three years – (iii) Appellant to deposit Rs.2000 as imposed by the High Court and in case of failure to deposit the said amount, appellant directed not to enter the premises of District Judgeship for a period of three months.
Professional Ethics – Advocates – Held: The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the justice delivery system – He has to follow the professional ethics and also to maintain high standards – He has to assist the court and also defend the interest of his client – He has to give due regard to his opponent and also to his counsel – What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as a member of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly higher – Advocates are held in high esteem in the society – The dignity of court is in fact dignity of the system of which an advocate being officer of the court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the advocate has acted contrary to the obligations. He has set a bad example before others while destroying the dignity of the court and the Judge. The action has the effect of weakening of confidence of the people in courts. The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The Judge has to deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner. He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling abuses. Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless preachers so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy. [Para 15] [903-E-G]
2. The act stated amounts to criminal contempt of court. The High Court has noted that the concerned advocate did not apologise and has maligned and scandalised the subordinate court. He has made bare denial and has not shown any remorse for his misconduct. Considering the gravamen of the allegations the High Court has imposed the imprisonment of SI for 6 months with fine of Rs.2000 and in default to pay fine or to undergo SI for 15 days. He has been restrained from entering the judgeship of Allahabad for a period of 6 months that was to commence from 15.7.2015 and he had been kept under watch for a period of 2 years. Considering the nature of misconduct, while upholding the conviction for criminal contempt, his sentence is modified in the following manner :
1. The sentence of imprisonment of 6 months shall remain suspended for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already. The period shall commence from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2022. In case of non violation of aforesaid condition the sentence after three years shall be remitted.
2. However, sentence of imprisonment may be activated by this Court in case it is found that there is breach of any condition made by the concerned advocate during the period of three years.
3. He shall deposit fine of Rs.2000 as imposed by the High Court. In case of failure to deposit fine he shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship for a period of three months. [Para 16] [903-H; 904-A-E]
Mr. ‘G’, A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court AIR 1954 SC 557; Lalit Mohan Das v. Advocate General, Orissa AIR 1957 SC 250 : [1957] SCR 167; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1998)
4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795 ; Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 650 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 675 ; Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala (2004) 6 SCC 311 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR
649 ; R K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009)
8 SCC 106:[2009] 11 SCR 1026 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.