Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief To Advocate Facing Contempt For Alleging Judge Was 'Dishonest' & Lacked 'Probity'
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to recall its order referring the case of an Advocate to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt against him after he filed a written submission accusing the Court of bias, dishonesty and lack of 'probity' during the hearing of a bail application. Though a bench of Justice Siddharth accepted the Advocate's unqualified apology,...
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to recall its order referring the case of an Advocate to the Division Bench for initiation of criminal contempt against him after he filed a written submission accusing the Court of bias, dishonesty and lack of 'probity' during the hearing of a bail application.
Though a bench of Justice Siddharth accepted the Advocate's unqualified apology, it made it clear that he could not be purged of the contempt of court which he has committed. Hence, it clarified that the referral already made to the Division Bench for contempt and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, still stands.
The Court added that allowing such a recall plea will set a very bad precedent and the lawyers will adopt these tactics for getting the case released from the Bench, if it is not favorably inclined and after institution of contempt proceedings they will pray for pardon (as was done in the present matter).
Case in brief
The underlying proceedings concerned a bail plea filed by a murder accused. The matter had been pending since April 2024 mainly due the fact that informant's counsels kept on taking adjournments.
On May 16 too, despite the matter being listed peremptorily, informant's advocate again sought time, stating he was not prepared. The Court allowed him liberty to file written submissions and reserved judgment
Now, on the next day, the advocate in question filed a written submission that did not respond to the bail arguments but instead accused the Court of bias stating that it was 'dishonest' and that the advocate had no faith in the bench.
Importantly, the advocate also attributed statements to the judge (claiming that Judge said the same to him) "यह बेवकूफी की बहस है… यह बेवकूफी की बहस सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चलती hai, हाईकोर्ट में नही" (Translation : This is a foolish argument. This kind of foolish argument goes on in the Supreme Court, not in the High Court).
He also sought that his written submission be sent to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Justice Siddharth, in the May 28 order, took objection to the WS, holding that its 'scandalous' contents amounted to criminal contempt.
Therefore, the single judge referred the matter to the Division Bench under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to examine the advocate's conduct. The bench also released the bail application by the same order.
Pursuant to this, when notices were issued in the contempt proceedings, the advocate came back to single judge's bench and filed a recall application praying for withdrawal of the written submissions, recall of the May 28 order making the contempt reference and dropping of the contempt proceedings.
He also tendered an unqualified apology and stated he has profound respect and honor for the Court.
Interestingly, on the pretext of pendency of the above recall application, the contemnor-advocate got the bail matter adjourned from the coordinate Bench.
High Court's order and observations
Dealing with his plea on October 31, Justice Siddharth refused to the recall the operative part of the order as it noted that the recall would set a very bad precedent.
It also noted that the advocate's acts delayed the bail hearing for more than five months after May 28, creating ruckus before the coordinate Bench and insisting the bail cannot be heard until the recall was decided.
Justice Siddharth drew extensively on the scheme of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to note that the acceptance of apology does not automatically purge the contemnor.
The court also rejected the submission of the contemnor that after accepting the apology, it is not open for the court in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act to still award punishment to the contemnor.
"…the proviso (to Section 12) clearly envisages both situations, namely the discharge of the contemnor or the remission of his punishment. The word "remit" has two connotations. It may either mean complete pardon or merely mitigating the sentence..a discretion is left to the court even after accepting an apology either to refrain from awarding any punishment to the contemnor or to award him lenient punishment".
Thus, holding that the contemnor had committed grave contempt by scandalized this court and making scurrilous attacks on the court after he failed to get the hearing of bail application adjourned, the bench partly allowed his plea by merely accepting his apology.
"The law punishes the contemnor out of no personal consideration for the Judge…The maintenance of the authority of the judiciary is indispensable to the stability of the nation", the Court remarked.
The bench also clarified that the written submission will not be permitted to be withdrawn and the order in question will not be recalled which means that the part of the order wherein criminal contempt and Bar Council reference was made, remains fully effective.
Case title - Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant vs. State of U.P.
Case citation :