UP Bar Council Elections | Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Nomination Of Advocate Facing Contempt Charges

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that the framing of contempt charges by a seven-judge Bench of the High Court was merely a prima facie view and did not amount to a conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Briefly put, a writ petition was filed by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad challenging the nomination of Naresh Chandra Tripathi for the post of Member of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council.

Advocate Manish Singh, for the petitioner, argued that Tripathi stood 'convicted' by a Seven-Judge and the matter was referred for registering the proceedings of contempt by getting a Bench constituted in the matter only for a limited purpose of awarding sentence.

Drawing a parallel with criminal law principles, the petitioner contended that since the conviction was recorded, Tripathi's nomination for the post was not appropriate.

On the other hand, Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, argued that the April 2023 order was passed in suo moto exercise of powers due to a continued strike by lawyers in the Civil Court, Kanpur.

He submitted that the bench's observations regarding the conduct of lawyers constituted a prima facie case for registering a contempt case.

It was contended that in contempt jurisprudence, even where ex facie contempt is noticed, the aggrieved party must be heard and since the matter was assigned to a Division Bench, which framed charges but has not yet passed a final order, the case remains at the stage of trial.

The Bench perused the HC's 7-Judge bench order and noted that merely contempt charges were framed against the alleged contemnors/lawyers (including Advocate Tripathi).

The bench opined that the charges themselves do not constitute a finding because, after the Bench was constituted under the Chief Justice's orders on its administrative side, the alleged contemnors were required to furnish their respective explanations to meet the charges.

"…no final orders have been passed in the matter of criminal contempt proceedings, the stage of proceedings are to be taken to have continued at the stage of trial only. A mere framing of charge does not amount, in our considered view, to conviction under Contempt of Courts Act", the bench remarked.

Consequently, finding the petition to be highly misplaced, the same was rejected.