Madhya Pradesh HC Rejects Senior Lawyer's Unconditional Apology For 'Causing Ruckus', Says Show Cause Notice To Strip Designation Issued

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (April 9) rejected a plea moved by senior advocate Narinder Singh Ruprah tendering unconditional apology, following the court's observation on his conduct that he caused a "ruckus in court" and had "raised his voice" during the hearing of an excise case earlier this week. 

When the matter was first called, senior advocate RN Singh submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, "I'm appearing for Mr Ruprah against whom some observations have been made by this hon'ble court on 7th of this month....application tendering apology. I'm tendering unconditional apology". Noting that the application was not on record, the court said that it shall take it up when the plea comes on record. 

Thereafter, when the matter was taken up at the passover stage, Senior advocate Sanjay Agarwal who also appeared for Ruprah said, "We have filed one application IA 6289". The application has been filed seeking recall of observations/directions made in two paragraphs (9 and 10) in order dated April 7. 

Agarwal said, “My Lord, we are tendering unconditional apology for whatever has happened…”

The Court however said, “No. But further steps have already been taken. He has been issued...I hope he has received the notice. Therefore, let this issue be decided by the Full Court."

The Senior Counsel continued, “It's my humble submission, it would be too harsh punishment. We are tendering unconditional and unqualified apology…We are not submitting any explanation". 

The Court however orally said, “Mr. Narendra Singh Ruprah tested our patience on that day and in more than 16 years of my experience, it has never ever happened...such situation. It was a total unpleasant situation. If the Court will allow such type of submission of the advocate then it will be difficult to run the Court and control the…if that is the position he should go through the recourse, whatever it is and he may seek apology from the other members of the Bench also. We have already taken steps. There is a permanent committee and it has taken the decision to issue notice ”. 

At this stage Agarwal said, "Our humble submission is it would be too harsh a punishment".

The court however orally remarked, "There is no punishment we have only referred the matter to the full court and recently he is designated. Therefore, Full Court will consider. If Full Court is of the opinion that he is good to continue as a Senior Advocate then he will continue". 

At this stage another Advocate said, “A thing that is given should not be taken back. You have given the gown...(Dekhiye ye hai ki di hui chiz wapas nahi li jaati Sir…Aapne hi toh Gown diya hai)”.

The Court orally said, “I don't know what is the record here. Two senior gowns given by the Delhi High Court to two lawyers were taken back. You all know...that is to be considered by the Full Court…Invariably Mr. Ruprah interjected in the matter. Even number of times he was suggested that 'now you're Senior Advocate, behave like a Senior Advocate'. It is not that you continue to do the running commentary. But he did not listen and that day he did not even let the Court speak saying that 'you're not listening to me'…It has been recorded on live streaming. It has not happened behind your back or in chamber...If you are trying to justify it...”

Agarwal however submitted that he was not trying to justify the conduct and was not submitting any explanation, and further ensured of good conduct in future. 

The Court however orally said, “He is not a new advocate, position would have been different. He is a seasoned one and after considering his experience also, the full court had considered designating him senior. But he felt that now that he has become senior no one can do anything to him, and he can say whatever he wants. That he can intimidate a judge...but now by mistake he has come before full court (but inko ye laga ki ab senior ban gaye koi kuch nahi kar sakta, jo marzi bol do, Judge ko dhamka do…but galti se full court mein aa gaye)”. 

Thereafter, Senior Advocate R. N. Singh said, “I'm requesting humbly. I'm also appearing in this matter. 70 saal ki history me this is the first case that has come. I'm not appreciating the conduct. We are accepting that mistake has been committed.”

The court however orally said, "Im not 70 years old. Whatever experience we have, in the history specially in our bench it has happened for the first time...If it is unprecedented you are free challenge". 

Thereafter, the Court with respect to the IA, in its order dictated,  "By the present application...Mr Ruprah sought unconditional apology, in view of the incident that had taken place on the last date of hearing, we reject the same". 

Before parting the court further orally added, "If something had happened with me personally, position would have been different. It is against the institution, against the chair that cannot be compromised. In my total experience, those who sought apology, you can check orders throughout, we have accepted. But those who stand by what they said, convicted and sent behind the bars."

In its order dated March 28, the Court had while hearing the excise case, directed the responsible person on behalf of respondent No. 5 (new licensee) to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. Further, the respondents No. 1 to 4 were also asked to take instructions as to how much stock was handed over to Respondent No. 5 as to the stock which belongs to the petitioner (old licensee).

Thereafter when the matter was heard on April 7, the court in its order dictated, "When this Court asked Mr. Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, learned Senior Advocate, whether respondent No.5 is present in Court or not, instead of responding to the query, he raised his voice excessively. He created a ruckus in the Court by shouting at top of his voice, which is recorded in the live-streamed recording of the Court. This Court had no option but to hear him. He is a designated Senior Advocate but looking to his conduct today, we are of the view that it needs to be reconsidered as it appears that he does not deserve to be a Senior Advocate. Thus, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to place the matter before the Full Court to consider whether he should be continued as a Senior Advocate or not. Till further orders, Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, learned Senior Advocate, shall not appear before this Bench."