The Bombay High Court has held two advocates guilty of criminal contempt for threatening a judicial officer during court proceedings and attempting to pressurise him while he was discharging his judicial duties. The court imposed a total financial liability of Rs 52,000 on each advocate and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action.
A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Raj D Wakode held that threatening a judge, addressing him in a loud voice and seeking to prevent him from passing judicial orders amounted to serious interference with the administration of justice.
The court, however, decided not to impose imprisonment. It directed each advocate to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 within two weeks and Rs 50,000 as costs to the Public Welfare Account.
Threats During Court Proceedings
The contempt proceedings arose from an incident before the court of a civil judge, junior division and judicial magistrate first class, at Arni in Yavatmal district.
On November 26, 2021, the trial court was considering the status of a bailable warrant issued against an accused. After noting that the accused remained absent despite the warrant, the judicial officer issued a non-bailable warrant.
The accused’s lawyer then informed the court that his client was present but had not entered the courtroom. When the accused was called, however, he was found absent.
The advocate subsequently sought cancellation of the warrant and stated that the dispute had been settled between the parties. He also sought recording of the informant’s evidence.
The judge declined the request after noting that other accused persons were also absent and that their presence first had to be secured.
According to the judicial officer’s account, the advocate then raised his voice inside the courtroom, accused the court of troubling them and treating their cases differently, and threatened to complain against the judge and initiate action through the Bar Association.
Another advocate, who was then president of the Arni Taluka Court Bar Association, later entered the courtroom while the judge was dictating an order. He allegedly warned the judicial officer that if anything was taken on record and acted upon, they would not spare him and would submit evidence of corruption against him to senior officials.
Conduct Intended to Pressurise Judicial Officer
The High Court held that the advocates’ conduct amounted to interference with the administration of justice.
It observed that if the advocates were dissatisfied with a judicial order, they were free to challenge it through the remedies available in law. Resorting to threats against the judicial officer instead had the effect of pressurising him while he was carrying out his official functions.
The bench said the due administration of law was more important than the success or failure of any individual case and found that the conduct was intended to terrorise and pressurise the judicial officer.
It also held that threatening a judge, speaking to him loudly and preventing him from passing orders were particularly serious when committed by advocates, who are officers of the court.
The court described the conduct as scandalous and amounting to misconduct.
Apologies Not Tendered at Earliest Stage
The two advocates denied the allegations and contended that the incident had occurred in the heat of arguments. They also relied on unconditional apologies tendered subsequently.
The High Court was not persuaded to accept the apologies as sufficient to avoid a finding of contempt. It noted that the apologies had not been offered at the earliest opportunity.
The bench also recorded that the advocates had initially failed to appear despite service of notice in the contempt proceedings, resulting in issuance of bailable warrants against them.
Relying on settled principles concerning apology in contempt proceedings, the court observed that an apology cannot be used merely as a defence after a contemnor realises that punishment may follow. It said a genuine apology must reflect real contrition and should ordinarily be offered at the earliest opportunity and in good faith.
Lawyers Expected to Maintain Dignity of Courts
The High Court also emphasised the special responsibilities attached to the legal profession.
It observed that the legal profession cannot be treated in the same manner as an ordinary commercial profession. Lawyers, the court noted, played an important role in India’s independence movement, contributed to the framing of the Constitution and have assisted courts in the development of jurisprudence through research and professional work.
The bench said advocates are expected to protect individual rights, equality and freedom while remaining fearless and independent in representing litigants.
At the same time, the court said advocates must maintain dignity and respect towards courts. If a lawyer has a serious grievance against a judicial officer, the grievance may be placed before the appropriate authority rather than expressed through threats inside the courtroom.
The bench further observed that contempt jurisdiction protects not merely the individual judge but also the ability of the judiciary to administer justice fearlessly and fairly and safeguards the reputation of the institution.
Fine and Bar Council Reference
After holding both advocates guilty of contempt, the High Court considered the appropriate punishment.
It noted that although the law permits imprisonment, fine or both, imposition of a fine is ordinarily the rule while imprisonment is an exception.
Taking into account that both respondents were practising advocates and had subsequently tendered apologies, the court concluded that a monetary penalty coupled with disciplinary reference would be sufficient.
Each advocate was directed to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 within two weeks and Rs 50,000 as costs to the Public Welfare Account.
The court also forwarded the proceedings to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action against the advocates.
