In a stern move aimed at preserving the dignity and independence of the judiciary, the Calcutta High Court has issued contempt proceedings against six lawyers accused of storming into a courtroom, shouting slogans, and obstructing a sitting judge during an ongoing criminal trial in 2012. The High Court emphasized that such conduct, especially when committed by officers of the court, “strikes at the heart of the rule of law.”
The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi passed the order in CRLCP 8 of 2012 – Court on its own motion vs. Debabrata Golder & Ors., reviving a long-pending contempt reference initiated by a subordinate court.
Background of the Case
On June 6, 2012, during proceedings in a criminal case (S.T. 49(8)11) before the Fast Track Court-III, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, six lawyers allegedly entered the courtroom, raised slogans, hurled abusive language at the presiding judge, and forcibly evacuated the accused persons in the guise of protest.
The then Additional District & Sessions Judge recorded the incident in a judicial order and wrote a letter to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter was placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, who directed that the reference be considered by a coordinate bench, which issued show cause notices to the six lawyers on July 3, 2012.
The matter was argued and reserved for judgment on August 24, 2012, but a verdict was never delivered. In 2025, over a decade later, the case was revived and heard afresh.
Allegations
According to the judicial order and reference letter, the six lawyers:
- Evacuated accused persons from the courtroom under the garb of agitation.
- Used abusive language against the presiding judge.
- Shouted slogans while the court was in session.
- Prevented the judge from discharging his judicial duties.
- Coerced litigants to leave the courtroom.
- Obstructed the court from passing judicial orders.
The Court observed that the incident not only disrupted the proceedings but sought to intimidate a judge inside his own courtroom, which amounts to criminal contempt.
Key Legal Issues
- Limitation:
The defense initially argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation. However, this was withdrawn during the course of arguments. The Court held that the reference made on June 6, 2012 and the High Court’s action on July 3, 2012 was within the one-year limitation period. - Maintainability and Gravity:
The Court emphasized that the charges were not merely about disorderly conduct, but about wilfully obstructing justice and undermining judicial authority, which squarely falls within the scope of criminal contempt.
Court’s Observations
In a significant remark, the Bench stated:
“Materials exist to issue Rule of Contempt against the six persons.”
The Court took a strict view of the actions of the six lawyers, noting that such conduct cannot be tolerated, especially by legal professionals who are officers of the court and custodians of the legal system.
Contempt Rule Issued
The Court formally issued contempt Rule under Form 2 of Appendix I of the Contempt of Courts Rules against the six individuals:
- Mr. Debabrata Golder
- Mr. Biswajit Ray
- Mr. Ismail Miya
- Mr. Bikash Ghosh
- Mr. Abdul Mamun
- Mr. Kalicharan Mondal
The contemnors have been directed to accept service of the Rule from the Sheristadar of Basirhat Sub-Divisional Court. The Rule has been made returnable on March 28, 2025.
Legal Representation
- For the alleged contemnor lawyers:
Senior Advocate Mr. Abhratosh Majumder
Advocates Mr. Samim Ahmed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Enamul Islam, and Mr. Nasirul Hoque - For the High Court Administration:
Senior Advocate Mr. Saikat Banerjee (virtually)
Advocates Mr. Victor Chatterjee and Mr. Shirsho Banerjee
