The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in an order dated October 31, 2025, has refused to recall its order referring an advocate for criminal contempt proceedings. The advocate, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, had filed a written submission containing what the Court termed “scandalous allegations” and a “clear imputation against the integrity of the court” after he “failed to get the hearing of bail application adjourned.”
Justice Siddharth, while accepting the advocate’s “unconditional apology,” held that the apology alone does not automatically purge the contemnor of grave contempt and that the reference to the criminal contempt bench and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh would stand.
Background of the Case
The issue originated from a bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15885 of 2024) where Sri Harish Chandra Shukla was counsel for the informant. According to the order, after the bail matter was argued and judgment was reserved on 16.05.2025, the advocate was given liberty to file a written submission.
In this written submission dated 17.05.2025, the Court found “scandalous allegations made therein amounting to criminal contempt.” As a result, in an order dated 28.05.2025, the Court referred the matter to the Division Bench hearing criminal contempt matters and also to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to assess the advocate’s conduct. By the same order, the Court released the bail application to be assigned to a different Bench.
Subsequently, Sri Shukla (the ‘contemnor’) filed an application seeking the withdrawal of his 17.05.2025 written submission and the recall of the 28.05.2025 reference order.
Arguments Before the Court
In the recall application, the contemnor, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, “made statement before the court that he has profound respect and honour for this court and he tenders unqualified apology for the same.” He submitted that having tendered this apology, he “stands purged of charges of criminal contempt.”
Counsel for the bail applicant argued that the contemnor “has succeeded in his design to delay the hearing of bail application for further period of more than five months” and allegedly “creates ruckus” before the new bench, citing the pendency of his recall application.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Hon’ble Siddharth, J., declined to permit the withdrawal of the written submission or recall the reference order. The Court reasoned that it “will set a very bad precedent and the lawyers like Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, the contemnor will adopt this tactics for getting the case released from the Bench, if it is not favourably inclined, and after institution of contempt proceedings they will pray for pardon.”
While the Court accepted the “unconditional apology,” it rejected the argument that this acceptance automatically ends the matter. The Court found the contemnor’s contention that he must be discharged “is not well-founded.” Interpreting the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court held that “a discretion is left to the court even after accepting an apology either to refrain from awarding any punishment… or to award him lenient punishment.”
The Court distinguished between minor and grave contempt, stating that for the latter, “mere acceptance of apology may not be adequate to meet the ends of justice; it may not purge the contemnor.”
Applying this to the case, the Court opined: “It is court’s considered opinion that in the instant case the contemnor has committed grave contempt. He scandalised this court and made scurrilous attacks on the court after he failed to get the hearing of bail application adjourned.” The Court noted the written submission was a “clear imputation against the integrity of the court” and that “the contemnor should not escape scot-free.”
Final Decision
The High Court “partly allowed” the recall application, only “to the extent it submits apology.”
However, the Court explicitly ruled that the part of the 28.05.2025 order “referring the matter to the Bench for hearing criminal contempt matters and to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall not be effected by the acceptance of unconditional apology.” The Court concluded that the question of whether the contemnor is purged “is for the contempt court to decide.”
