No Agitation Within Court: Calcutta HC Orders In Contempt Case Against Protesting Lawyers, Criticizes Defamatory Posters Against Judge

In a significant development, a three-Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday issued a slew of directions restraining advocates from holding agitations within the court premises pertaining to the contempt case initiated by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha against the errant lawyers who had created a ruckus outside his courtroom on January 9. 

A Bench comprising Justices TS Sivagnanam, IP Mukerji and Chitta Ranjan Dash ordered, 

"Since this Court is seized of this matter, we direct that no meetings, processions, agitations, shall be held or placards shall be displayed within the premises of this Court or anywhere else concerning the subject issue and this direction shall be given due publicity by the Registrar General by intimating to the three wings of the Bar as well as displaying the same in the notice board and also posting the same in the official website of this Hon’ble Court."

On January 9, largescale chaos erupted outside the courtroom of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha after a section of lawyers prevented him from continuing with proceedings. Several posters describing Justice Mantha as a "disgrace in the name of the judiciary" were seen pasted inside the premises of the Calcutta High Court and also near the judge’s residence in south Kolkata. Due to the ruckus, proceedings of Justice Mantha’s courtroom had to be temporarily stalled.

It may be noted that Justice Mantha on December 8 last year had passed an order staying over 26 FIRs lodged against BJP MLA and Leader of Opposition in Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, and directed the state government to take the permission of the court before lodging any FIR against him in the future. Earlier, Justice Mantha had removed protection granted to Maneka Gambhir, the sister-in-law of TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee in a money laundering case.

Pursuant to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings by Justice Mantha, Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava on Thursday had issued an assignment order naming Justices TS Sivagnanam, IP Mukerji and Chitta Ranjan Dash as part of the special bench to hear the proceedings initiated by Justice Mantha having regard to the gravity of the matter. 

During the hearing today, the Bench took on record a letter submitted by the Registrar General stipulating the names of 12 advocates who were allegedly involved in the agitations against Justice Mantha. The Bench took into consideration that all the 12 advocates are members of the Bar Association of Calcutta High Court.  However, the Bench noted that the letter does not contain adequate particulars of the 12 advocates so as to implead them as contemnors in the case. 

Further, in order to effectively resolve the issue, the Bench today issued notices to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, Assistant Commissioner of Police, High Court, Calcutta and the Officer-in-Charge of the Lake Police Station, Kolkata to see their assistance in the matter. 

Directing the Commissioner of Police to enquire as to who was responsible for placing an order for printing of the posters containing defamatory statements against Justice Mantha, the Court ordered, 

"The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata is directed to file a report before this Court as to who was the person, who had placed the order for printing the posters containing certain defamatory statements about the Hon’ble Judge, the printer who printed the posters and the persons, who were engaged to affix those posters."

Significantly, the Bench today also stated that it had received a Police report in a sealed cover containing photographs and a pen drive carrying CCTV footage of the alleged acts of contempt by the errant lawyers. However, the Bench expressed its inability to take the same on record at present since the police authority did not submit an electronic certificate as required under the Information Technology Act, read with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Accordingly, the Bench underscored, 

"We are conscious of the fact that the present proceeding is a criminal contempt and therefore, if the CCTV footages as well as the still photographs as received from the CCTV said to be furnished in the pen drive have to be brought on record, the requisite certificate has to be issued by the said police authorities in terms of the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended read with Section 65B of the Evidence Act."

Thus, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, High Court, Calcutta was directed today to furnish the requisite certificate to take on record the electronic documents. 

The Court today also recorded in its order that the present proceedings have been initiated to protect the dignity of the institution and accordingly underscored, 

"...in the present proceedings, whichto protect the dignity and decorum of this Court and also to remind the legal fraternity that they are part of a noble profession and no act of theirs shall prejudice the proceedings conducted by this Court and the oath of office administered to them when they were enrolled as the Members of the Bar'.

Furthermore, the Court also sought for the assistance of Bar representatives in the matter. In this regard, notice was directed to be served along with a copy of the order, upon the Bar Council of India, the Bar Council of West Bengal, the High Court Bar Association, Calcutta, the Bar Library Club and the Incorporated Law Society of the High Court. 

Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on February 2 by recording, 

"Therefore, for the present, we shall await the appearances of the Bar Council of India as well as the Bar Council of West Bengal and the three wings of the Bar and the report of the police and by then, the requisite certificate would be issued by the concerned police authority so as to enable this Court to take on record the contents of the pen drive stated to contain the CCTV footages as well as the still photographs as received from the CCTV concerning the incidents in front of Court room no.13 on 9th January, 2023, 10th January, 2023 and 11th January, 2023."

Case Title: The Court on its own motion

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 10

Click Here To Read/Download Order