'Need to maintain Dignity & Reputation Of Judicial Officers': Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Advocate In Contempt Case

The Supreme Court, while convicting an advocate in a seventeen-year-old criminal contempt case, reiterated that an apology must be evidence of remorse for the contemptuous acts. It must not be used as a weapon 'to purge the guilty of their offence'. Further, an apology lacking sincerity and not evidencing contriteness cannot be accepted. The Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha was hearing an appeal of one Gulshan Bajwa, a lawyer, who was convicted by the Delhi High Court (19 October 2006) of criminal contempt. Bajwa, inter-alia, made improper and reckless allegations against the Judges. Moreover, he continuously failed to appear before the High Court. Multiple ways were adopted to secure the appellant's presence, without any avail. The High Court's Bench of Justices Swatanter Kumar and G.S. Sistani pointed out several instances where the appellant's conduct was scrutinised in different proceedings. In all those cases, the egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded. The Court held that the acts are intentional and malicious and have persisted over a long period. Besides, the High Court also refused to accept the appellant's apology, observing that it was neither sincere nor satisfactory and a belated one. Finding the appellant guilty of criminal contempt, the High Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 2000. Thus, the instant appeal. Notably, while admitting the criminal appeal on 16th April 2007, the Apex Court granted an interim order to stay in operation of this High Court order. However, on more than a dozen occasions in this appeal, the Court noted that the listed cases were either adjourned at the appellant's request or because of his absence. Given this, the Court vacated the interim order. After perusing the submissions, the Top Court concurred with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. “We are in complete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations.,” the Court said. It also observed that the apology rendered by the appellant was not bonafide and was a mere lip service. Further, it opined that the appellant's conduct amounts to undermining the system of the law. “The High Court observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant. He has had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him. The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters.,” the Court added. In view of this above projection, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, considering certain medical ailments of the appellant, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court.Case Title: GULSHAN BAJWA vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OR DELHI., Diary No.- 2115 - 2007Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 69Click here to read/ download the judgment

'Need to maintain Dignity & Reputation Of Judicial Officers': Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Advocate In Contempt Case

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

'Need to maintain Dignity & Reputation Of Judicial Officers': Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Advocate In Contempt Case

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers