Assam AG Files Contempt Petition Against HC Bar Association Prez, Two Other Advocates Over Gauhati High Court Relocation Row; Verdict Reserved
The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday (April 8) reserved judgment in criminal contempt petitions filed by Advocate General, Devajit Saikia under Sections 11, 12 & 15(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging that Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya (Senior Advocate) and another advocate (Pallavi Talukdar) of the Gauhati High Court have...
The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday (April 8) reserved judgment in criminal contempt petitions filed by Advocate General, Devajit Saikia under Sections 11, 12 & 15(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging that Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya (Senior Advocate) and another advocate (Pallavi Talukdar) of the Gauhati High Court have committed criminal contempt by making scandalous remarks against an individual Judge as well as the High Court.
A further allegation against Senior Advocate, Kamal Nayan Choudhury, President, Gauhati High Court Bar Association (respondent No.2) is that the respondent No.1 has made such scandalous remarks with the consent and connivance of the respondent No.2.
It was alleged that the respondent no. 1 made derogatory and defamatory remarks against a judge, the high court and registry while protesting the proposed shifting of the high court to North Guwahati.
During the hearing on April 8, the Senior Advocate, Kamal Nayan Choudhury (respondent no. 2) raised an objection that the contempt petitions have been filed by the Devajit Saikia as an Advocate General as well as an individual. It was contended that an Advocate General and an individual, both cannot join hands in filing contempt petition.
“Therefore, this is a petition under which provision?,” Choudhury asked.
The Chief Justice asked Advocate whether he can raise objection at the stage where he Court has not taken cognizance and notice has not been issued to the respondents.
“The fact that proper procedure has not been followed, why your lordships will entertain the petition?,: argued Choudhury.
The Court said that when it will issue notice then only the respondent will get a right to audience.
The Advocate General (AG) submitted that the lady advocate- Pallavi Talukdar (respondent no. 1) in a media interview has used derogatory remarks against Justice Suman Shyam, a sitting Judge of the Gauhati High Court, which is a direct attack on the institution.
It was further alleged by the AG that the said lady advocate nicknamed a particular judge of the High Court as 'Chika' which in vernacular is for rat. It was alleged that in the said interview, the lady advocate has criticised the said judge in his court proceedings. The allegation was further made that she referred the said judges as 'manage master' and was stated to be managing the registry with regard listing of cases.
The AG said that as a constitutional duty, he has moved the contempt petitions. He further requested the Court to issue notice in the matter.
As regards Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya (Senior Advocate), the AG submitted that in the said media interview said that he has positive evidence against the said judge that he behaves like a CID.
“This is not an attack on Justice Suman Shyam as an individual. He is challenging the system”, argued the AG.
The AG further showed media interview, of the alleged contemnors, to the Court.
The Senior Advocate, Kamal Nayan Choudhury (respondent no. 2) submitted that the consent given by the AG to set motion for the contempt petitions is due to 'personal animosity'.
“Everywhere he (AG) is saying that three advocates are responsible, where the decision is of the Bar,” Choudhury averred.
Choudhury further argued that he is against the issuance of notice.
The Court asked Choudhry to place any authority which provides for giving pre-hearing before the issuance of notice.
Responding to the same, Choudhury submitted that he does not have any clear authority on the issue of pre-audience.
“When things are done in personal animus, certainly lordships will not give credence,” Choudhury argued.
It was argued that the concept of vicarious liability is alien to contempt jurisdiction.
The Court reserved its judgment in the said petitions.
It is to be noted that vide a notification dated April 8, issued by the Gauhati High Court registry, it was notified that the cases wherein Devajit Saikia (Senior Advocate) is engaged as a Counsel, are not be listed before the Bench of Justice Suman Shyam.
Also, the Gauhati High Court on April 3 issued a press release on the issue of protest against the shifting of High Court.
“Misinformation being spread in the Public arena on the subject of shifting of the Gauhati High Court from the present location and scandalous aspersions being leveled against the constitutional functionaries attached to the Gauhati High Court by a section of the members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, which have the effect of lowering the Public faith in the Institution of Judiciary as a whole and create doubts in the mind of the public as regards the independence of the Judiciary have necessitated the issuance of the present,” the Press Release said.
“Even after the decision was taken by the Full Court on 18.10.2023, meetings, both formal and informal, were held with the Gauhati High Court Bar Association but to no avail. It is still not known as to what is the ground for objecting to the Rangmahal land although the same is the nearest and the most suitable plot of land for setting up new and modern judicial infrastructure for the Gauhati High Court, District Judiciary, Kamrup (Metro) and all other Courts,” it further stated.
The Press Release also stated as follows:
“The Hon'ble Chief Justice requested Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam, who is the Chairman of the Building Committee as well as the Chairman of the Information and Communication Technology Committee amongst others to accompany the Hon'ble Chief Justice as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam was actively involved in the digitalization of the Gauhati High Court. Further to that all the other Hon'ble Judges senior to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam were not present at Guwahati on that day. A request made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to His Companion Judge is a request made by the High Court under who aegis each of the Hon'ble Judge function and such request are always adhered to. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam accepted the request and accompanied the Hon'ble Chief Justice along with the members of the Registry.”