Discharging Lawyer In Contempt Case, Delhi High Court Asks BCD To Assess If He Is Fit To Continue In Legal Profession
While discharging a lawyer who was suffering from “acute behavioural issues” in a suo moto criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked the Bar Council of Delhi to assess whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.A division bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted the lawyer was getting frustrated for the reasons best known to him, had very poor vision and...
While discharging a lawyer who was suffering from “acute behavioural issues” in a suo moto criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked the Bar Council of Delhi to assess whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.
A division bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait noted the lawyer was getting frustrated for the reasons best known to him, had very poor vision and was unable to read and write.
Noting that the lawyer did not even realize what and how to speak and in view of his medical condition, the bench also comprising of Justice Manoj Jain refused to take any coercive action against him for the disrespect shown to the court.
The bench accordingly discharged him with a word of caution that whenever he appears before any Court in any case or otherwise, he would maintain the decorum of the Court.
“Before parting, also we direct the Registry to communicate this order to the Bar Council of Delhi, who shall direct the respondent/contemnor to appear before the Council and assess whether he is fit to continue in this profession,” the court said.
The suo motu criminal contempt case was initiated in 2021 after a contempt reference was forwarded by an Additional District Judge.
While appearing before the trial court judge, the lawyer raised his voice, shouted in the court and referred to the court as 'Tu' and further said ki 'Dimag mat khrah kar'.
Before the High Court, the lawyer's counsel produced medical documents which were medical prescriptions from Ashray Psychiatric Clinic and Rehabilitation Home, IHBAS, AIIMS etc.
The court then noted that the lawyer was undergoing treatment and was having behavioural issues.
“Relevantly, petitioner is an Advocate by profession, who was enrolled in the year 1984. He is in his sixties. Being an Advocate by profession, respondent is expected to maintain the dignity of the Court,” the court said.
Counsel for Respondent: In person with Ms. Punya Rekha Angara and Mr. Mueed Shah, Advocates for Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. RANJEET SINGH MALHOTRA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 624