'Arguments Of Additional Advocate General Prima Facie Contemptuous' : AP High Court Says In Case Related To Krishnam Raju's Arrest

"A Lawyer has to be a gentleman first", the Division Bench of Justices Lalitha Kannengati and C Praveen Kumar reminded Additional Advocate General P. Sudhakar Reddy who addressed the Court in an 'intimidating tone' and went as far as casting aspersions on the Bench by saying that it has a 'special interest' in the matter.

The Court observed that the arguments advanced by the AAG are prima facie contemptuous and warrant initiation of contempt proceedings. However, it exhibited magnanimity and let the officer off with a caution to not repeat such actions in the future.

The Division Bench was quizzing the AAG over non-implementation of its order, directing the Respondent-authorities to conduct medical examination of the arrested legislator as ordered by the Magistrate Court.

More details on this aspect may be read here: Andhra MP Krishnam Raju's Arrest :AP High Court Initiates Suo Moto Contempt Over Non-Compliance Of Orders On Medical Examination

Responding to the Judges' queries, the order records, the AAG flared up in a high tone to the annoyance of the Court and in an intimidating manner started arguing that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a "fraud" and "illegal" order cannot be implemented and that the High Court has become a platform to implement an illegal order of the Magistrate.

The AAG further told the Bench that he received the High Court's order at 11 in the night and asked if he is supposed to open the prison doors at night and shift the MP to the hospital.

At this juncture, the Bench inquired as to why the order was not implemented the next morning, he informed the Bench that by that time the accused had approached the Top Court for relief.

The order says that the AAG continued in an intimidating tone that the Court has to hear what he has to submit and if the Court is not letting him to argue on merits, he will walk out.

Further in a louder tone, the AAG cast aspersions on the Court as to "what is the special interest of the Court in this case and what is so special about the letter to be accepted and to take up this case".

At the outset, the Bench made it clear that mere filing of an appeal before the Top Court is not an excuse to not implement the orders of a Constitutional Court (High Court), unless the appeal is allowed.

It then expressed surprise over such contemptuous conduct of an 'officer of Court'. The Bench observed that a lawyer is not expected to be subservient to the Courts while presenting his case. He has full liberty to put forward his arguments even when the Court appears to be against him.

However, he is not expected to be "discourteous" to the Court or to "overbeat" it with his epithets, disrespectful and threatening language.

"Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of intemperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat an argument. Humility is not servility and courtesy and politeness are not lack of dignity. Self-restraint and respectful attitude towards the Court," the Division Bench told the AAG.

It further observed that Advocates should ensure that the decorum of the court is maintained at all times.

"Being the member of the noble profession, the lawyer must conduct himself as role model for others. A verdict can never be acceptable to both the parties. A party which is unsatisfied with the verdict is provided with a remedy of questioning that order. No advocate has any right to talk in an intimidating manner. Advocate should not employ such tactics to wrench an order in his favor and should never identify himself with the client," it added.

The Division Bench stressed that if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.

Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the Society.

As far as State counsels are concerned, it observed,

"A counsel who represents the State is required to state the facts in a correct and honest manner. He has to discharge his duty with immense responsibility and each of his action has to be sensible.

He is expected to have higher standard of conduct. He has a special duty towards the Court in rendering assistance. It is because he has access to the public records and is also obliged to protect the public interest.

That apart, he has a moral responsibility to the Court. When these values corrode, one can say 'things fall apart'. He should always remind himself that an advocate, while not being insensible to ambition and achievement, should feel the sense of ethicality and nobility of the legal profession in his bones."

Justice C Praveen Kumar wrote a separate order to supplement the main order passed by Justice Lalitha Kannengati.

"I feel that learned Additional Advocate General Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy should have shown some restraint during the course of arguments. Restraint is the hallmark of a court room debate and choice of words should also be measured in a contested matter. The Additional Advocate General could have been sober and used better words during the court proceedings", Justice Praveen Kumar said in the order.

Case Title: Suo Moto v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Download Order