Bombay High Court Issues Contempt Notices To Lawyer, Client For Seeking Judge's Recusal Based On 'Fabricated' News Clipping Against Him

The Bombay High Court has directed registration of a suo motu contempt petition against lawyers - Zoheb Merchant and Minal Chandnani, and their client for using a fabricated news article with scandalous allegations against a judge to get him to recuse himself from hearing the case.

A division bench comprising Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and NR Borkar observed such allegations didn't merely attack the dignity of an individual Judge but were an attack on the authority of the institution and majesty of the law.

“Such deliberate, motivated and contemptuous act, which impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or lowers the dignity of the court fall within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

The court refused to accept an apology form the three contemnors, finding their approach ingenuine.

The case pertains to a criminal writ petition filed by Amar Mulchandani and others seeking to quash an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged money laundering case involving Rs 430 crores. In the petition, Bhisham Pahuja was impleaded as Respondent No.5 and was represented by advocate Zoheb Merchant.

On November 08, 2023, when the matter came up for hearing a praecipe was placed on record along with a news clipping making allegations against the judge presiding over the bench and the lawyer sought for the matter to be placed before another bench.

The lawyers subsequently apologised but in vain. The matter was subsequently placed before the bench of Justice Prabhudessai and an enquiry was ordered to test the veracity of the news article.

The report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police revealed no such news report was published in 'Rajdharma' and the said news clipping was a false and fabricated document.

“The conduct of Respondent No.5 (Bhimesh Pahuja) in picking up such news clipping, which was allegedly thrown at his door step, and forwarding it to his Advocate with a request to place it before the Judge, without even verifying the authenticity or genuineness of the news report, is prima facie sufficient to demonstrate hollowness and falsity of his claim that it was forwarded with all good intention,” the bench observed.

Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, appearing for Mulchandani submitted that the lawyers had a duty to advise their client against making any unwarranted comments instead of identifying with such malicious allegations.

Advocate Anturkar representing the lawyers conceded that the contents of the praecipe were contemptuous but it was a mistake by the young lawyer Merchant who acted on his client's instructions.

The court however held that Merchant cannot plead innocence on the instructions of his client. As an officer of the court it was his duty to refrain from maligning the judge or bringing disrepute to the institution.

“Suffice to say, a lawyer is not a mouthpiece of his client. He cannot join hands with his client in his professional capacity to malign the Judge and bring disrepute to the institution. The fact that he is a young lawyer, does not give him a license to pollute the stream of justice.”

The court added it was the lawyer's duty to advise his client against making such allegations.

The court further took exception to the timing of the precipice. “Such perfect timing in forwarding a fabricated newspaper clipping and filing of praecipe seeking recusal from the matter cannot be a mere coincidence but prima facie appears to be a calculated and motivated attempt of Bench hunting by browbeating the Judge to recuse from the proceedings. Such conduct strikes at the very fundamentals of administration of justice.”