The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday pulled up CPM leader and advocate Firdous Samim for allegedly using objectionable “slang” against a sitting judge after his plea was refused, directing him to apologise before the concerned judge during live proceedings and submit an undertaking that such conduct would not be repeated, failing which the Court may proceed with criminal contempt action.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee observed that the alleged remarks were not merely directed against the particular judge but could potentially be interpreted as objectionable comments against judges of the High Court as a whole.

“It was certainly addressed to the judge…not only against the judge, I will not be surprised if the interpretation is against all judges of this court,” the Court remarked.

The Bench emphasised that Samim is a practising advocate and not a layperson, making the alleged conduct particularly serious.

“An advocate! He was not a layman. He appears, his plea was refused and he ends the conversation using that slang,” the Court observed.

The Court said Samim should appear before the Single Judge concerned, seek pardon and give an undertaking that such conduct would never be repeated.

“Give an undertaking that it will never be done,” the Bench said. Samim was represented by Senior Advocate Jayanta Mitra.

The Court, however, made clear that an apology would not automatically bring the matter to an end. It said that after Samim approaches the judge, it would consider whether a formal rule of contempt should be issued.

“Once it is done, we will consider whether we will issue rule of contempt or not,” the Court said.

The Bench also expressed concern over the wider message that could be sent if an advocate were permitted to make objectionable remarks against judges and escape consequences merely by tendering an apology.

“It will go down in the annals of history that an advocate was making objectionable comments against judges of this court was allowed to go scot free on the basis of an apology,” the Court remarked.

The Court further stressed that advocates are entitled to challenge or seek reconsideration of a judicial order, but cannot use derogatory language against judges.

“You cannot say a judge is wrong, you can ask the judge to reconsider. That is advocacy. We have learnt from you,” the Bench told the senior counsel appearing for Samim.

The Bench also said that frustration or pressure during court proceedings cannot justify losing one's temper.

“This is sheer unreasonableness. You are under pressure, on the basis of this you may lose your temper. You can go outside court and discuss with friends,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that Samim regularly practises before it and has appeared before the concerned judges.

“We could have understood if he is a layman. He's having a practice, he has appeared before us,” the Bench said.

Expressing concern that the High Court should not be seen as remaining silent when such conduct occurs, the Court remarked, “Our HC advocate! It is going all over India that we keep silent and don't take any remedial measure.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench directed Samim to approach the concerned judge during the livestreamed proceedings and tender an apology. It further directed him to file an affidavit containing a written undertaking and apology.

“We will record that he will go and pray before the judge. Mention at the time of live streaming. Submit an affidavit and a written undertaking and an apology. If it is acceptable we will accept or we will proceed,” the Court said.