Advocate Making Baseless Allegation That Another Lawyer Took Money In Judge's Name; Supreme Court Affirms Contempt Of Court Proceedings

Taking a lenient view in an appeal filed by an advocate who was punished for contempt of Court, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakh.However, the Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari upheld sentence for contempt of court against the advocate who raised frivolous allegations against another advocate that the latter was asking the parties to give him briefs and money in the name of one of the Judges of the High Court BACKGROUND FACTSThe appellant was a practicing advocate in the Calcutta High Court. When a Division Bench of the High Court was hearing FMA No.623 of 2022, the Appellant filed an application being CAN No.3 of 2022 against the lawyer for the opposite side.The Appellant alleged that the other lawayer was asking the parties to give him briefs and money in the name of one of the Judges of the Bench. The Appellant had raised similar complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The Division Bench of the High Court initiated suo motu Contempt of Court proceedings against the Appellant. When interim orders were passed against the Appellant in contempt proceedings, the same were challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C)No.18622/2022. On 14.11.2022 the Supreme Court had disposed of the SLP on the basis of assurance and an undertaking given by the Appellant that he will tender an unconditional apology before the High Court and shall withdraw CAN No.3/2022 in FMA No.623/2022. The Appellant had further undertaken to assist the Bench so that the pending matter could be decided on merits, besides an undertaking that he shall not file any such application or conduct himself in the future to invite contempt proceedings. Nonetheless, the Appellant did not abide by the undertaking given and continued filing conditional letters before the High Court, reiterating the allegations against members of bar. In this backdrop, the High Court vide order dated 15.12.2022 held the Appellant guilty of Contempt of Court. The High Court observed that there cannot be both apology and justification for an act; the conduct of the Appellant has interfered with the administration of justice and lowered the dignity of the Hon'ble Court. Further, no remorse has been expressed by the Appellant. The High Court directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 2 Lakhs with the Registrar General and the sum would be refunded after a period of three years, in case the Appellant conducts himself respectfully. Otherwise, the amount would stand forfeited. In case the sum is not deposited, the Commissioner of Police would take the Appellant in his custody. Since the Appellant failed to deposit Rs. 2 Lakhs with the Court, he was arrested by the Police. The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Order dated 15.12.2022.SUPREME COURT VERDICTAs an interim measure, the Supreme Court had ordered release of the Appellant from judicial custody if Rs. 1 Lakh is deposited within 3 days. The Appellant deposited the amount and was hence released. When the matter was put up for final hearing, the Supreme Court Bench took a lenient view and observed as under:“Be that as it may, we are still inclined to take a lenient view with the hope and trust that the appellant will conduct himself in the future as a disciplined member of the legal fraternity and shall cause no embarrassment to anyone. We are confident that the appellant shall abide by the unconditional apology tendered by him on 21.02.2023 and shall continue to purge the contempt.”The Bench has modified the High Court order dated 15.12.2022 to the extent of amount payable by the Appellant and the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs has been reduced to Rs. 1 Lakh. Further, the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh would be refunded after two years to the Appellant, if his conduct does not give cause to initiate contempt proceedings in future. However, if the Appellant’s conduct is not appropriate then the amount shall stand forfeited and be paid to the State Legal Services Authority.Case Title: Gunjan Sinha Alias Kanishk Sinha v The State of West Bengal & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 230Contempt of Courts Act 1971- Supreme Court affirms contempt of court proceedings against advocate for raising frivolous allegation that another lawyer was taking money from clients in the name of judges- Reduces penalty from Rupees 2 lakhs to Rs 1 LakhClick Here To Read/Download Order

Advocate Making Baseless Allegation That Another Lawyer Took Money In Judge's Name; Supreme Court Affirms Contempt Of Court Proceedings

Pallavi Mishra

Tags