The Karnataka High Court has convicted an advocate of criminal contempt over his conduct before a Karwar court, including appearing in an inebriated condition, shouting at the Presiding Officer and interfering with ongoing court proceedings. A bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T sentenced the advocate to simple imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and imposed a fine of ₹2,000.
The contempt proceedings arose from two incidents in April 2022 involving the advocate, who was appearing as a party-in-person in a domestic violence case before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Karwar.
Shouted at Judge Though His Case Was Not Listed
On April 8, 2022, although his case was not listed, the advocate appeared before the court and began shouting at the Presiding Officer, complaining that a date had not been given in his case. He also yelled at the bench clerk for not calling out the matter.
Despite being warned about his conduct, he continued and alleged that the Presiding Officer had received money from his wife in the domestic violence case and had passed orders in her favour. The incident was subsequently reported to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar.
Three days later, on April 11, the advocate submitted an apology letter stating that he had never intended to hurt or cause problems to the court. He expressed regret over the inconvenience and requested withdrawal of the complaint.
Returned to Court After Consuming Alcohol, Interrupted Arguments
Another incident occurred on April 20 at about 3.30 pm. Senior counsel K.R. Desai was addressing arguments when the advocate interrupted him midway and, in a disrespectful tone, asked him to stop so that his own case could be taken up.
When the Presiding Officer intervened, the advocate did not listen and started yelling. The judgment records that he was smelling of alcohol and was unsteady. He was consequently sent to Civil Hospital, Karwar, for medical examination. The certificate of drunkenness relied upon in the proceedings was issued by the Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences.
The judicial officer later testified that despite having earlier tendered an apology and expressed regret, the advocate again interfered with court proceedings and behaved unprofessionally.
Advocate Denied Committing Criminal Contempt
The advocate contested the proceedings and maintained that he had not committed criminal contempt. He argued that the allegation concerning consumption of alcohol had been incorrectly linked to the April 8 incident, whereas the certificate of drunkenness related to April 20.
He also stated that he had been practising before the Karwar courts for 18 years. He further submitted that he had suffered from epilepsy for more than 35 years and was occasionally subjected to strokes and fits. He said his 75-year-old mother was bedridden and that he was her only caretaker. He alleged that the contempt proceedings had been initiated deliberately to harass him and sought their dismissal.
Conduct Amounted to Criminal Contempt, High Court Finds
The High Court examined Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which covers acts that scandalise or tend to scandalise a court, interfere or tend to interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association, Prashant Bhushan and another, In Re and Vijay Kurle, In Re while considering the limits of fair criticism and conduct that scandalises the judiciary or undermines confidence in the judicial system.
After considering the evidence, the High Court held that the charges against the advocate had been proved.
“He has committed aggravated contempt in the face of the Court by scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against Judicial Officers as well as the Judges of the Court.”
The bench also took note of his conduct during the contempt proceedings and observed:
“Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole.”
One-Day Imprisonment and ₹2,000 Fine
Holding the charges proved, the High Court convicted the advocate of criminal contempt punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
At the stage of sentencing, the court recorded that he had not expressed regret and continued with his stand. It also noted that no mitigating factors had been pleaded. Considering the gravity of the contempt, his conduct, age and profession, the bench sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, along with a fine of ₹2,000 payable within 15 days.
In default of payment of the fine, the advocate was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one more day. The court ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to issue a conviction warrant under Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Pankaj Kaushik
Case No.: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 10 of 2022
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Date: September 11, 2026
