Supreme Court Stays Gauhati HC's Contempt Proceedings Against Bar Association President

The Supreme Court today(April 28) granted interim protection to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association President, KN Choudhary, against the contempt proceedings initiated by the Gauhati High Court.

The High Court had initiated the proceedings based on a complaint filed by the Advocate General against Choudhary and two other senior lawyers, alleging that Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya and another advocate, Pallavi Talukdar,  have committed criminal contempt by making scandalous remarks against an individual Judge as well as the High Court while protesting the proposed shift of the Court to Rangmahal in North Guwahati.

In the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order keeping the contempt proceedings against the Bar's President in abeyance. At the same time, the Court stated that the contempt proceedings against the two advocates can continue.

"Issue notice. Mr Tushar Mehta has put an appearance on instruction on behalf of the Advocate General State of Assam (Respondent 1)...Considering the facts and circumstances and the arguments advanced, as an interim measure we provide that the High Court will proceed with the contempt proceedings against Respondent 1 and 3. However, proceedings against the present petitioner [President of Bar] shall remain in abeyance," the bench observed.

Appearing for the Bar's President, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the President was not even present when the remarks were made. He added that he has put a statement in this regard with a video clip before the High Court. 

At the outset, Justice Vikram asked: "Why are you opposing the construction of the new high court's building?"

Sibal responded that he is not opposing it. But the moment he said this, both judges asked if he was sure of this and whether he was willing to make a statement in this regard.

After which, Sibal accepted that he may be opposing it. He said: "Fine, milords. But I cannot be proceeded in contempt just because I opposed it."

He further opposed the allegations of a strike taking place due to the relocation. He submitted that there was no strike.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan filed another petition on behalf of the Bar Association, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the Court proceeded to issue an order granting interim protection to the Bar's President.

"What we propose to do Mr Sibal is, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on behalf of the Bar Association. Dismissed. And so far the President is concerned, will issue notice and we will permit the High Court to continue contempt as against the two lawyers..." Justice Nath said.

To this, Sibal informed that the Bar Association has issued notices against the two advocates for misconduct. Justice Nath responded that "swift action" must be taken.

Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Advocate General on instructions, opposed the interim protection. He stated that the members of the Bar could not have made a statement without the knowledge of the President. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a distinct identity.

"Your Lordship may have the benefit of the High Court's findings. It may proceed against everyone...Bar Association is represented through the President...If a person takes responsibility of a group of people he takes responsibility in preventing them, advising them and whatever is required. He cannot say let the Bar be prosecuted and I be separately treated. Nothing happens without the consent, concurrence of the President," SG Mehta submitted.

However, Justice Nath responded that the Bar Association would be represented by its Secretary and not the President. Sibal objected to the submissions of SG Mehta and stated that the latter is appearing without a caveat.

The Advocate General submitted before the High Court 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. He is the Chairman of the Building Committee as well as the Chairman of the Information and Communication Technology Committee.

As regards Bhattacharyya, 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. The High Court has reserved judgment in the contempt petitions.

Also, the Gauhati High Court on April 3 issued a press release on the issue of protest against the shifting of the 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

Case Details:  GAUHATI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs ADVOCATE GENERAL ASSAM|D No. 20664/2025 and SHRI KAMAL NAYAN CHOUDHURY vs ADVOCATE GENERAL, ASSAM AND ORS. SLP(Crl) No. 6225-6226/2025