‘Trying To Impede Administration Of Law’: MP High Court Slaps Rs. 4 Lakhs Fine On Lawyer For 'Reckless' Allegations Against Judges
In suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the former Chief Justice, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a hefty sum of Rs 4 lakhs as fine on an advocate who made ‘scandalous’ remarks against the judges at the Indore Bench.While holding the 41-year-old lawyer guilty of contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Division Bench also...
In suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the former Chief Justice, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a hefty sum of Rs 4 lakhs as fine on an advocate who made ‘scandalous’ remarks against the judges at the Indore Bench.
While holding the 41-year-old lawyer guilty of contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Division Bench also harshly reprimanded the contemnor Manoj Kumar Shrivastava, who is an officer of the court, for his gross misconduct.
“Being an advocate, the respondent is not merely an agent or servant of his client but he is also an officer of the court. He owes a duty towards the court. There can be nothing more serious than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the people in such administration….”, the court said.
In M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1991), the Supreme Court had made a remark that an advocate ‘who should know better’ shouldn’t toy around with the concept of judicial independence to ‘secure small gains’. “…It only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the institution itself”, the Supreme Court had stated in 1991.
Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed that the language used in four out of the seven letters forwarded by the Principal Registrar (Judicial) revealed relentless attempts to obstruct and prevent the administration of justice. The court also expressed dissatisfaction about the manner in which the contemnor showed no remorse at all for his actions despite repeated warnings. Exercising the High Court’s powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, the Division Bench deemed it fit to impose suitable punishment on the contemnor.
“When the matter was taken up for final consideration, the respondent-accused is not sorry for his deeds, rather in an aggressive manner, he submits that he has already filed reply and applications that may be considered. He does not want to argue anymore. No unconditional apology is tendered by him and no prayer is made by him to drop the proceedings....”
The presiding judges have also placed reliance on the apex court decisions in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors., (2021) & Re : Perry Kansagra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576 to impose fine on the respondent contemnor. The respondent is required to serve jail time only if he fails to deposit the fine with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association within one month from the date of pronouncement of the order.
The court was also not pleased with the interim application filed by the respondent to implead the judges as parties to the criminal contempt proceedings instead of convincing the court about any plausible justifications for his contemptuous actions. This attempt itself goes to show the controverted mindset of the respondent regarding the case, the court opined. With regards to another interim application filed demanding compensation of Rupees Fifty Lakhs, the Division Bench pointed out that the same cannot be sustained unless the charges are dropped in all the seven distinct contempt proceedings initiated against him.
After refusing to show any further lenience to the contemnor, the court noted in the order as follows:
“….He being an advocate and officer of the court should be aware of the language to be used in applications/complaints and how to appear and argue before the Court.”
Background
The contempt proceedings date back to 2013 when the Principal Registrar (Judicial) submitted a note sheet for initiating contempt proceedings which was then approved by the former Chief Justice. The basis of the said note sheet was a series of letters/complaints filed by the contemnor against certain judges alleging bias towards parties involved in cases, refusal to hear certain matters to shield a few parties and advocates, and issuance of arbitrary orders. In one of the complaints, the petitioner had even suggested that there was an imminent threat to his life and liberty. In the current case, the respondent was found guilty in four contempt proceedings based on four such complaints out of the seven contempt cases in total. These letters were written by the contemnor during the time period of 25.07.2011 to 25.09.2012.
Case Title: In Reference v. Manoj Kumar Shrivastava
Case No: Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 - 7 of 2013