The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant order concerning courtroom decorum and contempt proceedings, has accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology of an advocate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi allowed the advocate’s petition, expunged adverse remarks made against him in a prior order, and requested the Jharkhand State Bar Council to halt disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized that a sincere and genuine apology, tendered at the outset, is a crucial factor in such matters.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an order dated September 25, 2025, in anticipatory bail applications (ABA No. 5362 of 2025 and ABA No. 5131 of 2025). During the hearing of these cases, an “untoward incident occurred in the court proceeding inadvertently by the petitioner,” Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who was the arguing counsel. Consequently, the court, while not passing a sentence, referred the matter to the Jharkhand State Bar Council, the designated disciplinary authority for advocates.
Subsequently, Mr. Kumar filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr. M.P. No. 3017 of 2025) seeking a modification of the September 25 order.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrs. Ritu Kumar submitted that her client had tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the incident. She further conveyed that the petitioner had given a categorical “undertaking to the effect that such act will never be repeated by the petitioner before any Court.”
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who was personally present in the court, addressed the bench directly. He stated that he was “seeking apology from the Court from the core of heart and apology is not intentional to avoid the rigor of the order.” He requested that he be exonerated.
The court also noted that “The President and Secretary of the Advocate Association and other Members of the Bar have collectively express regrate for whole affair.”
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi began his analysis by explaining the rationale behind the initial order. The court observed that the original order was passed considering that “the law of criminal contempt is concerned with the protection and the maintenance of public confidence in the Courts of law and it is primarily for this reason that the law of criminal contempt forbids the plea of justification.”
The Court then elaborated on the principles governing the acceptance of an apology in contempt proceedings. It stated, “It is well settled that the true and indeed the sole test for acceptance of an apology is an extremely and genuine contrition felt and exhibited at the very outset.”
The judgment distinguished between a genuine apology and a tactical one, noting that a contemnor cannot attempt to justify their contumacious words or acts and then, “when all has failed, then to turn round and say that he tenders an apology. That would be making a farce of the law of criminal contempt.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s observations in the case of S. Mulgaokar (1978 (3) SCC 339), the High Court reiterated that its discretion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is regulated by well-established principles. The court must be satisfied that any apology is “bona fide and is sincere repentance of his deed or omission.”
Applying these principles to the present case, the court expressed its satisfaction with the petitioner’s conduct. It observed, “This Court… has got no doubt in mind that contemner in the present case has given or tendered a sincere apology and has satisfied the Court of his undertaking to never repeat such an act again specially when on earlier occasion, it was a bona fide error on ill-advice received by him.”
The Court also reflected on the purpose of punishment in contempt cases, stating, “The object of punishing a contemner for committing contempt of court is to uphold the rule of law and to maintain the confidence of the people in the administration of justice.”
Final Decision
In light of the advocate’s sincere apology, the undertaking provided, and the collective regret expressed by the Bar, the Court concluded that the matter need not proceed further. Justice Dwivedi held, “The cause of justice would be subserved in adequate measure, if the apology tendered by the petitioner is accepted and proceedings are dropped.”
The Court passed the following orders:
- The apology tendered by the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, was formally accepted.
- The adverse remarks made against the petitioner in the order dated September 25, 2025, were expunged.
- The Jharkhand State Bar Council was requested not to proceed further against the petitioner.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was thereby allowed and disposed of.
