Lawyers Who Sign Pleadings Which 'Scandalise' Court Without Existence Of Adequate Grounds Can Be Held Liable For Contempt: Bombay High Court
An advocate who signs an application or pleading with scandalous remarks against the Court without reasonable grounds to create an artificial situation so that the matter was recused by a judge may be liable for a contempt action, the Bombay High Court reiterated while contemplating action against two lawyers and issuing contempt notice against their client.The division bench comprising...
An advocate who signs an application or pleading with scandalous remarks against the Court without reasonable grounds to create an artificial situation so that the matter was recused by a judge may be liable for a contempt action, the Bombay High Court reiterated while contemplating action against two lawyers and issuing contempt notice against their client.
The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and NR Borkar added that in a conflict between a lawyer's obligations to the Court and his duty to the client, what prevails first is his obligation to the Court.
“It is the duty of the advocates to advise their clients to refrain from making allegations of such nature,” the court said relying on the SC judgement in M.Y. Shareef & Another Versus The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur & Others [1955 SCR (1) 757].
The division bench was dealing with a praecipe (application to circulate the matter) filed through Advocate Zoheb Merchant, junior of Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani on behalf of their client/ respondent one Bhisham Hiralal Pahuja. Enclosed with the precipice was a newspaper article casting aspersions on Justice Sambre.
The article alleged that Justice Sambre is biased towards the petitioner in the case and will grant him bail to maintain relations with him. It further stated that a complaint has been filed against Justice Sambre with the Chief Justice of India.
When questioned in court, Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani, under whom Advocate Zoheb Merchant works, stood by the contents of the praecipe. However, after the court observed that the conduct of both lawyers was scandalizing the Courts and creating an artificial situation so that the matter was not taken up, the Court recorded that the lawyers had tendered an unconditional apology.
The court took strong exception to the conduct of the lawyers. It observed: "when it was enquired with the Registry as to who has submitted the praecipe, it was informed that both these lawyers have submitted the praecipe and that time the Registry had advised them to refrain from doing so. After some time both these lawyers came back and insisted the Registry to accept the praecipe."
Accordingly, the court has now directed the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissioner of Police to ensure service of contempt notice on respondent Bhisham Pahuja and to submit details of the newspaper 'Rajdharma' which published the scandalous article.
The court heavily relied on a Supreme Court judgment which held that lawyers cannot hide behind client instructions when they sign pleadings that scandalize the court. The court said it will consider whether the unconditional apologies tendered by the lawyers are bonafide.
“The Judges of the Bench are expected to decide the disputes brought before them free from any personal bias or prejudice. The parties like the aforesaid lawyers and the litigants to whom they represent create an artificial perception that by scandalizing the Courts and the Judges they can secure a order of recusal. In such an eventuality, we are of the view that the lawyers and the litigants who exhibit such behavior are required to be dealt with an iron hand by taking stern action,” it concluded.
The matter will next be heard on January 12, 2024.