The Bombay High Court has held two advocates guilty of contempt of Court for threatening a Judicial Officer in open court and attempting to pressurise him while he was conducting proceedings. The Court emphasized the need to maintain dignity, and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 on the advocates concerned, besides referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode was hearing a criminal contempt reference made by a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class against two advocates, who are son and father. The reference arose from proceedings in a criminal case where the younger advocate insisted that a warrant against an accused be cancelled. When the Judicial Officer declined, the advocate allegedly started shouting in the Court hall, stating that they would take action against the Judge and have proof of corruption.

The Court noted that in deciding whether a contempt is serious enough to merit imprisonment, the court will take into account the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice and the culpability of the offender. It observed that the intention with which the act complained of is done is a material factor in determining what punishment

The Court held that the statements and conduct of both advocates amounted to interference with the administration of justice. It observed:

“Interference in the administration of justice by giving threats, addressing the judicial officer in loud voice and prohibiting him from passing orders are definitely serious acts. More so, when such acts have been done by an advocate who is the officer of the Court, he should promote and see that all others who are present should also maintain the decorum of the Court.”

On the apologies tendered by the respondents, the Court noted that they were not offered at the earlier stage and were tendered only after the Court had directed them to do so. Referring to the Supreme Court's observations, the Court held that an apology lacking remorse or offered merely to escape punishment can be termed a “paper apology”.

“… giving threats in the open Court to the Judicial Officer needs to be viewed very seriously. If the apology which is tendered is not genuine one or bonafide, it is not necessary for the Court to accept the same,” the Court remarked.

The Court held that the apology tendered by the respondents cannot be accepted because of the nature of the conduct involved.

“… using threatening and abusive language against the Judge/Judicial Officer during the conduct of the judicial proceedings in the open Court and similarly further threats of lodging complaints which are of-course false in nature to the High Court by a person who was holding the post of the President of the Bar Association cannot be viewed as a bonafide mistake,” the Court emphasized.

The Court noted that under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a fine is ordinarily the rule and imprisonment an exception. Though the Court underscored that the respondents committed contempt of Court, considering that the respondents were practising lawyers and had subsequently tendered apologies, the Court found that imposing a fine and costs and referring the matter for disciplinary action would be adequate.

While underlining the importance of Advocates conducting themselves in a dignified manner, the Court observed:

“An Advocate should always show respect towards the Court. An Advocate has to bear in mind that the dignity and respect maintained towards Judicial Officer is essential for the survival of a free community.”

Accordingly, the Court directed both advocates to pay a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 each, and referred the proceedings to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action.

Case Title: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid v. Sagar Durgadas Rathod [Criminal Contempt Reference No. 1 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order