‘Conduct amounts to undermining the system of law & interfering with the course of justice administration’: Top Court confirms order of conviction passed against Advocate for committing successive acts of contempt
Justices Vikram Nath & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha [30-01-2024]

Read Order: GULSHAN BAJWA v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577/2007]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 1, 2024: The Supreme Court has upheld the order of conviction of an Advocate under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after noticing his conduct relating to giving threats to the lady counsel who was appearing for the other side. The Top Court also noted that his misbehaviour went to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha was considering a matter where the High Court exercising its suo motu contempt jurisdiction, convicted the sole appellant-a practising advocate and a former army personnel, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to civil imprisonment of three months. There were about seven instances which the High Court had taken into account, where the conduct of the appellant came under scrutiny in different proceedings where the egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded.

In a writ petition before the High Court, the appellant, appearing as counsel, sought an adjournment. After granting an adjournment, the Court noticed the appellant’s conduct relating to giving threats to the lady counsel who was appearing for the other side. Thereafter, the High Court passed an order directing him to explain his conduct. When the appellant failed to appear, he had filed applications in the same matter making reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges of the High Court.

By failing to appear and filing baseless allegations, the appellant had disobeyed the orders of the Court. It also came to the knowledge of the High Court that the appellant had frequently filed transfer applications on behalf of his clients, without their knowledge. Therefore, a Division Bench of the High Court issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why proceedings under the Act should not be initiated against him. Around the same time, another Division Bench of the Court had also initiated suo motu contempt action against the appellant after noticing that he had filed an application in a writ petition, where he had made certain improper allegations against the Judges.

Even in this contempt proceeding as well as the writ petition, the appellant failed to appear. However, he was filing applications day-after-day making reckless allegations against the Judges. Both the suo-motu contempt proceedings were tagged and listed for 22.08.2006. However, neither on that date nor on subsequent dates did the appellant appear. Multiple ways were adopted to secure the presence of the appellant, without any avail. Upon failure to secure the appellant’s presence even then, non-bailable warrants were issued. The said warrants could also not be executed since the appellant was not available on any of the addresses mentioned.

After numerous attempts, the appellant still failed to appear before the Court, instead, he was filing applications challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in issuing such warrants.

At the outset, the Bench took note of the fact that the High Court relied upon M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [LQ/SC/1991/345]; Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, [LQ/SC/1992/181]; Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re), [LQ/SC/1998/1003]. “We are in complete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations. We are also of the opinion that the High Court was correct in not accepting the apology tendered by the appellant since it was not bonafide and lacked in sincerity, apart from being belated and a mere lip service”, the Bench observed.

It was noticed by the Bench that the appellant was trying to resort to forum shopping by asking the Court to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice in a connected matter. The appellant contemnor is the petitioner in the court-martial proceedings. The Bench observed that the appellant’s conduct before the High Court and even before the Top Court, amounted to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration.

It was further opined that he had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which was not agreeing with him. The misbehaviour went to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters.

Noticing the fact that the High Court correctly rejected the apology, the  Bench referred to M.Y. Shareef v. Honble Judges of High Court of Nagpur [LQ/SC/1954/133] and L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [LQ/SC/1984/148] in order to highlight that apology must evidence remorse with respect to the contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge the guilty of their offence. Further, an apology lacking in sincerity and not evidencing contriteness, cannot be accepted.

After considering the impugned orders and perusing the way the appellant had conducted the proceedings before this Court, the Bench opined that the finding of conviction against the appellant warranted no interference. However, considering the age of the appellant and taking note of his submission that he was suffering from certain medical ailments, the Bench modified the sentence imposed by the High Court from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP against order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Contempt subject to the above modification of the sentence.