The Calcutta High Court held a special late evening hearing at 8:30 pm yesterday (18.12.2023) to address the events that unfolded before a single bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay which directed the arrest of a lawyer from the courtroom for alleged criminal contempt when he cited a division-bench judgement which had modified the single-bench's order.
Notably, the Calcutta High Court Bar Association had written to Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam to withdraw all judicial work from Justice Gangopadhyay and had resolved to not enter his courtroom till an apology was tendered to the lawyer and the members of the Bar.
In the late-evening sitting, a division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya stayed the direction for the lawyer's arrest and held:
"The reliance upon the order of Division Bench cannot be perceived a contumacious act nor would tarnish the majesty and sanctity of the Court. There is no reflection of any other incident in the letter as the said order has not been uploaded on the server. Taking clue from the celebrated observations of the Supreme Court as quoted above, and solely relying upon the statements made by the appellant in the said letter narrating the events happened, we feel that it is a fit case where the interim protection is to be extended to the appellant being a Member of the Bar and of a legal profession. We, therefore, stay operation of the order dated 18th December 2023."
The present appeal came to be registered based on a letter written by the aggrieved lawyer, assailing the order by which he was directed to be taken into custody and undergo three days of civil imprisonment despite repeated unconditional apologies having tendered to the Single Judge.
It was contended that the appellant had presented the Court with a division-bench order which had modified its earlier orders on appointments being made to an unaided Madrasah, but upon being handed the order of the division bench, the Court directed for the arrest of the lawyer without any reasonable cause or grounds being shown.
In perusing the lawyer's letter, the division bench reflected upon various judgements of the Apex Court. It held:
Administration of justice is a stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. The Court should also maintain a judicial restraint and discipline as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are all to be effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint humility should be constant theme of our Judges. We are not unmindful of the fact that one of the foremost duty cast upon the lawyer is to uphold and protect the interest of his client fearlessly by all fair and honourable manner.
Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and stayed the order of the single judge directing three days of civil imprisonment for the lawyer.
Case: Prosenjit Mukherjee Vs. Aparna Modak and others.
Case No: MAT 2479 of 2023
