The Gujarat High Court has closed contempt proceedings against a senior advocate who was seen sipping beer during a virtual court hearing last month, after accepting his unconditional apology.
A bench of Justices AS Supehia and RT Vachhani noted on Tuesday that while the act was contemptuous, it was not intentional. The court observed, “The advocate has tendered unconditional apology and the act has occurred due to an error in operating the system. He says he upholds the dignity and majesty of the court and he has 52 years of practice before this institution and has also been conferred the designation of Senior Advocate since 1995.”
The controversy erupted after a video went viral showing the senior advocate sipping beer from a mug during a virtual appearance before Justice Sandeep Bhatt on June 26. Following the circulation of the clip, the division bench had on July 1 initiated contempt proceedings, citing the need to uphold the decorum of the court.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the senior advocate explained that the incident was a result of pressing the wrong button on the video conferencing platform while attempting to exit the hearing. “My request would be — pardon me,” he pleaded before the court, emphasizing that his reflexes weren’t quick enough and that the incident lasted only 15 seconds.
He made it clear he took full responsibility for the lapse but firmly objected to comparisons with past virtual court misbehaviors. “It is a blot. I can’t be compared to the man who has taken it there (toilet),” he told the court.
He had already apologized on multiple occasions. On July 1, soon after contempt proceedings were initiated, he admitted his error and told the bench, “I am guilty and I should be punished but I must say that while I unconditionally apologise, there was no intent.”
The next day, on July 2, he also personally apologized to Justice Bhatt, explaining that he had been waiting to appear in another matter when the mishap occurred.
Taking into account the registry’s report, the senior advocate’s long-standing reputation, and his repeated apologies, the bench decided to close the matter. “We accept the unconditional apology tendered. Such an act will not be committed in future,” the court recorded in its order.
