The Gujarat High Court has sentenced an advocate to three months’ simple imprisonment for criminal and civil contempt, following a series of reckless, scandalous allegations made by him against sitting Judges, Chief Justices, and Judicial Officers of the State. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani also ordered forfeiture of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by him as security and imposed an additional cost of Rs. 1,00,000.
Background
The contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court against the advocate practicing in Gujarat. The proceedings spanned over 15 years and covered multiple applications due to repeated misconduct. The Bar Council of Gujarat had already debarred him from legal practice for making baseless allegations against members of the judiciary.
He was found to have issued public notices, legal communications, and even filed applications seeking permission to prosecute sitting judges under criminal laws and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Among others, his targets included Justice Akil Kureshi, Justice H.N. Devani, Justice A.L. Dave, and then Chief Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Pattern of Misconduct
The Court documented over 52 such notices or letters addressed to various judicial authorities, ministers, and government functionaries, wherein the advocate made allegations against the judiciary. Notably, he published notices in newspapers like The Western Times in 2006, 2014, and 2016, publicly naming judges and accusing them of misconduct.
Despite being arrested and having spent approximately 80 days in custody during earlier phases of the proceedings, he continued with his conduct. Even after furnishing an undertaking to remain present and depositing Rs. 5 lakh with the Registry, he failed to appear for hearings. The Court appointed legal aid counsel Mr. Kurven Desai to represent him due to his repeated absence.
Submissions by Amicus and Counsel
Mr. Asim J. Pandya, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae, urged the Court to impose the maximum sentence under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He argued that the continued misconduct amounted to obstruction of justice and warranted strong punitive action to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
On the other hand, Mr. Kurven Desai, representing the advocate, pleaded for leniency citing his age (62) and ongoing proceedings for over a decade. He argued that some contempt applications were barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court, however, observed that even if some matters were barred, there were still at least 20 to 25 actionable cases, and the pattern of behavior reflected a persistent attempt to scandalize the court.
Key Judicial Observations
The High Court made several critical observations:
- “The contemnor has systematically undertaken a campaign with ill-motive to demean and lower the majesty of this Court.”
- “He has not tendered any apology and, on the contrary, has continued his contemptuous conduct.”
- “His acts constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) and civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
The Court emphasized that the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution, retains inherent powers to punish for contempt and is not strictly bound by procedural limitations under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sentence and Directions
The Court invoked Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and passed the following directions:
- Imprisonment: The advocate is to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.
- Forfeiture: Rs. 5,00,000 deposited with the Registry stands forfeited.
- Cost: He is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as cost within three weeks.
- No set-off: Time spent in earlier incarceration (~80 days) will not be counted toward this sentence.
- Execution: Police authorities were directed to arrest him for execution of the sentence.
- Communication: The judgment will be circulated to the Bar Council of Gujarat and all judicial forums in the State.
The Court also quashed a criminal complaint filed by the contemnor against Amicus Curiae Mr. Asim Pandya, holding that it was filed with the intent to obstruct the administration of justice.
