Application Cast Serious Aspersions On Court, Riddled With Language Errors: Rajasthan High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Advocate
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on a High Court Advocate for casting serious aspersions on the court, thereby lowering its majesty. The Court also commented on the Advocate's poor command over language, which it said was reflected from the application filed by him.A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed, "These...
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on a High Court Advocate for casting serious aspersions on the court, thereby lowering its majesty. The Court also commented on the Advocate's poor command over language, which it said was reflected from the application filed by him.
A division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed,
"These aspersions amount to browbeating and lowering the dignity of the court and are thoroughly contemnous. The petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan is required to act as an officer of the court, but it seems that he has scant respect for the court and total disregard for administration of justice."
The counsel had filed an application seeking review of the judgment rendered in a criminal reference. He was aggrieved by the fact that while deciding the reference, the High Court did not invite inputs from the Bar, subordinate State judiciary.
At the outset, the court opined that the petitioner appears to be peeved by non-inclusion of his name in the array of Advocates, whose presence is noted in the judgment.
It also noted that the application filed by him is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, which cannot be expected from an Advocate desirous of appearing and pleading cases of litigants in the Apex Court of the State, i.e. the High court. Looking at the nature of these blunders, the court expressed serious reservation on the self-proclamation made by the petitioner Advocate in the application, where he had branded himself to be a learned person.
Considering the review application as frivolous and mischievous, the court dismissed the same with a cost of Rs, 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner Advocate in the funds of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of order. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the cost as above, he shall be precluded from filing Vakalatnama and from appearing and arguing cases on behalf of litigants in any court within the State of Rajasthan, added the court.
On merits, the bench observed that Section 395 of CrPC, which makes provision for criminal reference, does not obligate the Court to invite views of the members of the Bar and that notifying the members of the Bar in a reference of this nature is purely the discretion of the court to be exercised as a matter of prudence.
Thus, the court observed that the petitioner has no locus to dictate the terms of the procedure and the manner in which the reference should have been heard and decided.
Notably, the court stated that the petitioner has cast serious aspersions on the court in the following two grounds pleaded in the application:
- "That looking to aforesaid ground, impugned judgment passed in the reference is looking merely passed inside the Chamber not in open court, therefore, same ought to be rectified now.
- That in the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that judgment was reserved on 30/07/2021 and pronounced on 03/12/2021, therefore, there is 5 months gap between reserving a judgment and delivering it."
In this regard, the court opined that these aspersions amount to browbeating and lowering the dignity of the court and are thoroughly contemnous. The petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan is required to act as an officer of the court, but it seems that he has "scant respect" for the court and total disregard for administration of justice, added the court.
The petitioner appeared in person while PP R.R. Chhaparwal appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Case Title: Sumit Singhal v. State, Through Advocate General, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Click Here To Read/Download Order