The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has sentenced a lawyer to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for committing criminal contempt of court. The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh found the lawyer guilty of scandalizing the court and interfering with judicial proceedings, after he disrupted the court, refused to wear prescribed attire, and called the judges “goondas” during a hearing on August 18, 2021.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Court on August 18, 2021, following two specific incidents of misconduct.
- First Incident (August 18, 2021): When the Court assembled in the morning, the lawyer appeared in civil dress with his shirt unbuttoned. Upon being advised to wear advocate’s uniform or at least appear in decent dress, he defiantly refused, stating that he had challenged the Bar Council Rules prescribing the dress code. When asked to button his shirt, he refused, used abusive language, disrupted proceedings, and remarked in open court that the judges were “behaving like goondas.”
- Second Incident (August 16, 2021): During the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation related to the Bar Association elections, the same lawyer, without being a party to the case, barged into the courtroom without uniform and began shouting at the top of his voice, insisting on his right to address the Court.
The Court noted that after being taken into custody until 3:00 PM on August 18 to allow him to reflect and possibly tender an apology, the lawyer resumed his disruptive conduct upon release.
Court’s Analysis
The lawyer was served with a show-cause notice on August 24, 2021, but failed to file any response or explanation. The Court observed that despite multiple opportunities, no affidavit or reply was submitted, showing a complete lack of remorse or cooperation.
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Ajay Kumar Pandey (In Re) [(1996) SCC (Cri) 1391], Arundhati Roy, In Re [(2002) 3 SCC 343], and D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India [(1996) 5 SCC 216], the High Court reiterated that while freedom of speech is protected, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. It held that attacking the dignity of the Court in the guise of such freedom cannot be tolerated.
The Bench stated:
“The maintenance of dignity of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set-up and any criticism of the judicial institution couched in language that ultimately results in undermining the dignity of the courts cannot be permitted.”
The Court further emphasized:
“Scandalising the court… is really polluting the very fount of justice.”
It found that the conduct fell under Section 2(c)(i) (scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court) and Section 2(c)(ii) (interference with judicial proceedings) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Past Misconduct Considered
The Court reviewed the lawyer’s record and noted a “persistent pattern of contemptuous conduct,” including prior instances from 2003 onwards involving similar disruptions, abusive conduct, and pending contempt applications.
In 2017, he had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and barred from entering the High Court premises for two years—a direction later upheld by the Supreme Court. The present case was found to be a continuation of such unrepentant conduct.
Final Judgment
In view of the seriousness of the offence, the Court ordered:
- Six months’ simple imprisonment
- Fine of ₹2,000, with an additional one month’s imprisonment in case of default
- Direction to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow within four weeks
Additionally, the Court issued a notice under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, calling upon the lawyer to explain why he should not be debarred from practicing before the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of three years. He has been directed to file his reply by May 1, 2025, and remain personally present on the next date of hearing.
His oral request for leave to appeal under Article 134A of the Constitution was rejected.
