Allahabad High Court Sentences Advocate To 6 Months In Jail For Calling Judges 'Goondas'; Bars Him From Practicing In HC For 3 Yrs

Pandey has been found guilty of committing criminal contempt of court by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, as it concluded that Pandey's conduct shows that he treats the judicial process with “utter disdain” and continues to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity.

The bench has also restrained him from practicing in the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of three years.

Further, he has been given a notice under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, to explain why he should not be debarred from practicing before the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for the aforementioned period.

The facts which led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Pandey are that, on August 18, 2021, when the Court assembled in the morning, he appeared before the Court in improper attire, i.e., in civil dress with his shirt unbuttoned.

When the Court advised him to appear in decent dress, he defied the Court's direction, refused to wear the advocate's uniform, and even questioned the Court's definition of “decent dress.”

Thereafter, he created a disturbance, used abusive language, and claimed that the Judges were “behaving like goondas,” which, in the Court's opinion, amounted to scandalizing the Court and attempting to lower its authority in the eyes of the advocates and others present.

As per the Court's order, on August 16, 2021, during the hearing of another case, Pandey had barged into the Court without uniform, shouted at the top of his voice, and disrupted proceedings, claiming his right to address the Court out of turn.

In view of his conduct, the Court had to direct the Court Officer and security personnel to remove him from the courtroom so as to maintain the serenity and decorum of the proceedings. He was ordered to be kept in custody till 3:00 PM that day to allow him time to reflect upon his conduct and to tender an unconditional apology to the Court possibly.

However, upon his release from custody, Pandey again entered the courtroom and resumed his disruptive behaviour instead of expressing remorse or offering an apology.

As per the Division Bench's order, his repeated contemptuous conduct left no scope for any leniency, and despite being given an opportunity to express remorse, he continued to behave in a contemptuous manner. Accordingly, suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated.

Dealing with the suo moto matter against Pandey, the bench took into account his repeated misconduct to conclude that he has been “intentionally” engaged in a pattern of behaviour aimed at undermining the authority of this Court.

He continues to disregard orders of the Court, refuses to acknowledge the error of his ways, and shows no signs of reform, the bench observed, considering his past conduct beginning 2003.

Regarding the charges against him, the bench noted that, as a senior member of the Awadh Bar Association, Pandey was fully aware that he was required to be properly dressed in Court and have his shirt properly buttoned, which he refused to do even when asked by the Court and used abusive language against the Judges.

Terming this act as a “deliberate breach” coupled with an offensive outburst, the Bench stated that it constituted a direct and intentional affront to the dignity and decorum of the Court.

Furthermore, regarding his act of forcefully entering the courtroom and reaching the podium without uniform, and shouting without leave of the Court, the bench observd thus:

“This unprofessionalism and forceful intrusion into judicial proceedings, especially by a practicing Advocate, is an egregious violation of courtroom protocol and discipline. It demonstrates not only disrespect towards the Bench but also an intention to disrupt and derail the course of justice. 26. The Court cannot be expected to function under such disruptive circumstances. Such conduct, especially from an Advocate, not only violates Court discipline but also affects public perception of judicial functioning.”

Agaisnt this backdrop, the court found his conduct falling within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) (scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court) and Section 2(c)(ii) (interference with judicial proceedings) of the Act of 1971 and thus, he has been sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment.

However, after the judgment was pronounced in Court, Pandey made an oral request for permission/certificate for leave to appeal under Article 134(A) of the Constitution of India, which was rejected.