'Unfortunate That Bar Leaders Tend To Play God By Rescuing Errant Advocates': Madras High Court While Holding SC Advocate Guilty Of Contempt

A division bench of Justices R. Hemalatha and P.N Prakash raised concerns about the rising number of cases registered against advocates in the state. According to statistics, there have been 263 cases against advocates from January till April this year.

While holding the contemnor guilty under Sections 2 (c)(i) [scandalising the Court] and 2(c)(iii) [interfering with the administration of justice] of Contempt Of Courts Act bench noted that Magistrates to Supreme Court judges have come from the Bar.

"We look upon the Bar as an independent and fearless body that would protect the judiciary when the judiciary is vilified and targeted by others", the court noted at the outset before making comments about the delinquent conduct of some members of the Bar.

"…It is also unfortunate that Bar leaders tend to play God by readily going to the rescue of errant advocates, who involve themselves in breaking the institution from inside. We genuinely fear that if the Bar, which is the source for the Bench, becomes criminalized and corrupt, the Bench will get only bad apples. That will be the last nail in the coffin of democracy. There is no point in ruing thereafter that the judiciary has collapsed", the court expressed its reservations about the recent incidents where lawyers have been booked by the police while clarifying that it was only their 'paternal instinct' to express their concern in the aftermath of such incidents involving the members of Bar.

Justice M. Dhandapani, while hearing the anticipatory bail pleas of the mother-daughter duo on 15^th June, 2021, made some observations about the deteriorating standards of legal profession while asking the Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry to file a status report on the current mechanism in place and the steps taken so far to deal with such advocates who show a penchant towards deviating from the law of the land.

The contempt case against Advocate R. Krishnamurthy was initiated on the basis of a slandering audio message that was circulated in WhatsApp about Madras High Court Justice M. Dhandapani.

According to the remarks of accused advocate in the audio, Justice M. Dhandapani was not impartial while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by a woman lawyer and her daughter who is a law student. The offence that the daughter was alleged to have been committed was violation of Covid Protocol by moving outside without the requisite pass. The mother was accused of verbally abusing the police while defending her daughter's actions.

The accused advocate mentions in the audio recording that it is prudent for Justice M. Dhandapani to recuse himself from the case since he has chosen the side of the Police in the matter while making denigrating remarks about the legal fraternity. The accused even gave a warning that he would file a special leave petition before Supreme Court to expunge the remarks pertaining to the same if its recorded in the court order.

On this issue, the division bench notes that instead of recording his protest in a dignified manner in the course of hearing itself or after taking an appointment with the judge in his Chambers, he chose to accuse Justice M. Dhandapani by circulating the audio clipping.

"If the respondent had not been an advocate, then, we could be sympathetic to some extent. We usually extend the longest of our olive branches to disgruntled litigants who attack Judges off and on. However, if we show leniency to the respondent, it is tantamount to showing misplaced sympathy", the court observes while noting that condoning the act would send out a wrong message to the public that obtaining a law degree would make them impervious to the consequences of attacking the judges.

"They would be emboldened to obtain a law degree, which, we are told, is freely given in some States by law colleges functioning in garages and terraces and start maligning the institution in the social media like the respondent", the court elaborated.

On the charges against the alleged contemnor, the court observed that alleging bias unfoundedly have the effect of scandalising the court by relying on Padmahasini v. C.R. Srinivas, (1999) 8 SCC 711. On the allegation about i interfering with the due course of the judicial proceedings in the anticipatory bail petitions of mother-daughter duo, the court observed that the advocate was not guilty since he recorded and circulated the WhatsApp Message after the hearing.

On the third charge about interfering with the administration of justice, the court noted the following with reference to the conduct of the advocate and the apex court judgment in Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik & Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 1:

"…What the respondent had told the learned Judge is that if he (the learned Judge) were to record his anguish in the order, he would take the matter to the Supreme Court and have the same expunged. This is, in our considered opinion, clearly tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice "in any other manner", as provided under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, we hold the respondent guilty of the third charge."

Therefore, the court directed him to pay Rs. 4,000/- as fine for both the charges where he was found guilty. Upon failure to pay the fine amount, he will have to undergo one week simple imprisonment for each charges proved against him. Moreover, the court also held that the respondent will not be allowed to practise in the Madras High Court for a period of one year from the date of the order, by placing reliance on R.K.Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106.

The Court also directed that the copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of Kerala for appropriate action against the contemnor.

Case Title: High Court of Madras v. R. Krishnamurthy

Case No: Suo Motu Crl. Cont.Petn. No.766/ 2021

Click Here To Read/ Download Order