News Updates

Contempt proceedings initiated against lawyer for issuing notice to the Judge

Apoorva Mandhani
28 Oct 2014 4:32 AM GMT
Contempt proceedings initiated against lawyer for issuing notice to the Judge
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Karnataka High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against RKGMM Mahaswamyavaru, a lawyer from NR Colony near Kothitopu in Tumkur, for issuing a notice to Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, asking him why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against him for being “discriminative.”

The Principal Civil Judge made a complaint to the district judge who forwarded the matter to the High Court. The Chief Justice then ordered to take up a suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the lawyer. This complaint stated that the lawyer had no right to issue the legal notice and that the lawyer dragged the matter by filing applications one after the other.

The complaint stated, “If the lawyer or his client is aggrieved by the order of this court, then the proper recourse open for them is to approach the appellate court and they are not supposed to comment upon such order and functions of judicial officers.”

In the notice dated February 22, 2014, the advocate had asserted that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and argued cases only in Kannada whereas the judge conducted the proceedings in English. He alleged that he was not given sufficient time and dates for his cases despite submitting that he had cases in other courts.

Three days time to reply had been provided to the Judge, failing which the advocate had warned the judge of initiating civil, criminal and writ proceedings before the High Court, against him.

Next Story