"Everyone Has Bad Days": Bombay HC Full Bench Accepts Apology From Adv Mathews Nedumpara, Discharges Contempt Notice

"We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself, and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required," a full bench of Justices Gautam Patel, MS Karnik and Bharati Dangre observed.

Nedumpara was issued a contempt notice for his behaviour after a division bench questioned him on the maintainability of his client's petition.

Earlier this week, the full bench clarified it was not condoning Nedumpara's acts by accepting the apology and "deprecated" his conduct. "Everyone has bad days. Counsel — and possibly even judges — are no exceptions. The question is how such a momentary lapse should be approached."

However, they also wondered if a superior court's power of contempt should be used on every occasion or if courts should administer justice tempered with mercy. "We do not understand this to mean unwarranted leniency by the court, nor that courts must be timorous and let themselves be intimidated."

"But Courts are, after all, institutions of a great formality. The administration of justice, and more particularly public faith in the administration of justice, depends not just upon how it is administered, but also on how it is seen to be administered. This requires certain standards of conduct throughout the day."

Even as Amicus Curiae Shyam Mehta urged the court to direct Nedumpara to give an undertaking of good behaviour, the bench refused to do so.

"We appreciate Mr Mehta's concern, but it is not our intention to humiliate anyone; and certainly not by an order of a court. We need no such undertaking to be separately voiced, for the simple reason that this undertaking is part and parcel of the very sanad that allows every advocate to practice law," the order read.

While Nedumpara offered an explanation for his conduct, he eventually said through his advocate Subhash Jha that "he regrets his conduct." Adding "there was undoubtedly a lapse on his part and a momentary failure to observe and maintain the discipline and decorum necessary in any court of law. But this was inadvertent; perhaps in the heat of the moment."

Earlier, in March 2019, the Supreme Court had held Nedumpara guilty of committing contempt in the face of court for making reference to the Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman while alleging that only sons and daughters of judges were given senior designation. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment in the case and was also barred from appearing in SC for a period of one year.

Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay Versus Mathews J Nedumpara, Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 363 

Click Here To Read/Download Order