Allahabad HC Judge Recuses From Hearing Case Where Contempt Action Was Recommended Against Sr. Advocate
On Monday, Justice Sangeeta Chandra of the Allahabad High Court recused herself from hearing a case in which an order was passed last week by a division bench led by her, referring the matter to the Chief Justice for drawing criminal contempt proceedings against a Senior Advocate. It may be noted that the division bench (also comprising Justice Brij Raj Singh) had made the...
On Monday, Justice Sangeeta Chandra of the Allahabad High Court recused herself from hearing a case in which an order was passed last week by a division bench led by her, referring the matter to the Chief Justice for drawing criminal contempt proceedings against a Senior Advocate.
It may be noted that the division bench (also comprising Justice Brij Raj Singh) had made the said reference after it found that the Senior Counsel had "scandalised" the court and "lowered its dignity" by casting aspersions on the conduct of court proceedings and making personal accusations of malice.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Justice Chandra said: “Not before me”.
This development comes a day after the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh unanimously passed a resolution seeking Justice Sangeeta Chandra's transfer from the Allahabad High Court to another High Court.
Background of the matter
The order recommending contempt action against Senior Counsel SC Mishra was passed while the division bench was dealing with a writ plea challenging two orders issued by the Lucknow Nagar Nigam rejecting the petitioner's technical bid for a tender. The petitioner, represented by the senior counsel SC Mishra, argued that the LNN/LMC should deem them qualified, allowing the financial bid to be opened for the petitioner.
In an order passed on September 25, the Court summoned the records relating to the cancellation of the earlier tender notice in which the petitioner was found to have been technically qualified and also the current tender notice, which was under challenge.
Now, on September 27, the counsel for the LMC sought some more time to produce the record as demanded by the Court. Given this, criticising the conduct on behalf of the Officials of Nagar Nigam, the Court sought to postpone the matter for further hearing on September 30.
However, at this point, the senior counsel (appearing for the petitioner) objected to the postponement of the hearing and insisted that an interim order be granted without looking into the record of the Nagar Nigam.
He also emphasised the urgency of the matter, alleging that the respondents intended to issue a letter of intent to the successful bidder.
Acknowledging his grievance, the Court stated in the order that any issuance of the letter would be contingent upon the outcome of the pending writ petition. However, the Court denied the request regarding the grant of an interim order, stating that any interim relief would be granted only after reviewing the Nagar Nigam records.
To this, the Senior Counsel 'took umbrage' and started shouting in the Court that the matter would finally be decided today. Despite the court's insistence, he refused to argue the matter on merits, stating that he did not wish to say anything as the court was inclined to pass an order in favour of the respondents.
He added that the court may pass any order as it pleases and even dismiss the matter.
In response to such statements made by the senior counsel, the Court pointed out that such behaviour undermined the court's authority and could set a negative precedent for junior lawyers witnessing court proceedings.
However, as per the Court's order, when the senior counsel continued in the same manner, casting aspersions on the conduct of the Court proceedings and making personal imputations of malice, the Court referred the matter to the chief justice to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against him.