MP High Court Orders Framing Of Contempt Charges Against An Advocate For Alleged Personal Remarks On Sitting HC Judge's Family

The Madya Pradesh High Court last week ordered the framing of criminal contempt charges against an Advocate who has been accused of making personal comments relating to family members of a sitting High Court Judge in open court.

Refusing to accept the written apology tendered by the alleged contemnor, a bench of Justice Sheel Nagu observed that the alleged contemnor's repeated acts had damaged the reputation of the Court and the remorse expressed by him was neither genuine nor bona fide and it was merely to escape the rigours of contempt

"Considering the totality of circumstances where contemnor has allegedly caused repeat act of contempt, once before Judicial Officer of District Judiciary and thereafter before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, acceptance of written apology tendered by contemnor would amount to travesty of justice," the Court stressed.

The Court further added that by the repeated act of alleged contempt, the contemnor had created a situation where the High Court was compelled to safeguard its majesty from being further damaged by taking the contempt proceedings to the next stage of framing of charges and holding an inquiry to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of charges.

Essentially, the allegations against the alleged contemnor () were to the effect that he was appearing for his client (convicted for Murder) while arguing his criminal appeal, wherein when he realised that the court was not inclined to provide any relief, he requested to withdraw the application, however, upon the court's refusal, he allegedly began behaving inappropriately towards the bench, in the presence of other advocates, panel lawyers, and court staff.

Allegedly, he made certain absurd remarks against a judge sitting in the division bench as well as personal comments against her family members (her husband and daughter).

Taking note of the alleged contemptuous behaviour of the advocate, the division bench, in its order dated March 17, 2021 observed thus while issuing him a contempt show cause notice to him:

"Mr. Madan Singh, Advocate, who is having experience of more than 20 years of practice as an Advocate, is not expected to behave in such a ridiculous manner with the Judges in the Court and pass personal comments on their family to make unnecessary pressure on the Bench. The aforesaid conduct of Mr. Madan Singh, Advocate in Court is against professional ethics and amounts to professional misconduct as well, which is done willfully with a wrong intention to diminish the dignity of the Court and tarnish the reputation of lady Judge, therefore, it is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961"

Though the alleged contemnor filed his reply to the show cause notice seeking the dropping of proceedings by tendering an unqualified and unconditional apology for his act, the single Judge (to whom the contempt matter was referred to) noted that it was not the first instance of alleged contemptuous action by contemnor, but repeat instance where the majesty of this Court is allegedly damaged.

Hence, considering the totality of circumstances where the contemnor has allegedly caused a repeat act of contempt, once before the Judicial Officer of District Judiciary and thereafter before the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, the Court refused to accept the written apology tendered by him.

Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to frame charges against the alleged contemnor and to grant him a reasonable opportunity to file his reply to the charges framed, whereafter inquiry shall be held by recording statements as far as possible, of all the witnesses.

"After the recording of statements, the matter be placed before appropriate Bench for rendering findings as regards contemnor's innocence or guilt," the Court further ordered while posting the matter after 10 weeks.

Case title - IN REFERENCE vs. MADAN SINGH

Click Here To Read/Download Order