Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction for Obstructing Court Order: P R Adikesavan vs. Registrar General, Madras High Court (23 May 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether obstructing the execution of a court-issued non-bailable warrant constitutes criminal contempt of court.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Contempt of Court

Case Name: P R Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another

Judgment Date: 23 May 2022

Date of the Judgment: 23 May 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 521

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Bela M Trivedi, J. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a lawyer be held in contempt of court for obstructing the execution of a court order? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a lawyer who, along with other advocates, prevented the police from executing a non-bailable warrant issued by the Madras High Court. The court examined whether such actions constitute criminal contempt and upheld the conviction of the lawyer.

Case Background

The case stems from insolvency proceedings initiated against the appellant, P R Adikesavan, under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12 March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant for the appellant’s appearance on 26 March 2021. When the police attempted to execute the warrant on 31 March 2021, the appellant, along with around fifty other advocates, obstructed the police, preventing them from carrying out the court’s order. The Deputy Commissioner of Police reported the incident to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court on 13 April 2021.

After reviewing video evidence of the incident, the Single Judge initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant on 14 July 2021, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. The Single Judge noted that the video footage showed the appellant and other advocates questioning and abusing the police, obstructing the administration of justice.

The court observed that the appellant, aware of the proceedings, deliberately avoided appearing, leading to the issuance of the non-bailable warrant. The Single Judge concluded that a prima facie case of contempt was made out against the appellant and another advocate for obstructing the police from executing the court’s order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

On 1 September 2021, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, after reviewing the records, found a prima facie case against the appellant and issued a notice. On 26 October 2021, the court framed charges against the appellant under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, for interfering with and obstructing the administration of justice by preventing the execution of the non-bailable warrant.

The proceedings were adjourned five times at the appellant’s request. Before the next hearing, the appellant filed sub-applications, including one seeking the recusal of one of the judges on the Division Bench and another seeking to summon the Single Judge as a witness. However, the appellant later withdrew these applications and did not re-present them.

The Division Bench, in its judgment dated 25 March 2022, found the appellant guilty of contempt. The court sentenced him to two weeks of simple imprisonment, imposed a fine of Rs 2,000, and barred him from practicing as an advocate in the Madras High Court for one year. The court noted that the video evidence showed that the police did not use physical force and that the obstruction was caused by the lawyers surrounding and abusing the police. The court also pointed out that the appellant could have simply accompanied the police to the police station and sought release from the court that issued the warrant.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Specifically, the following provisions are relevant:

• Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971: This section defines “criminal contempt” as any act that “interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”
  
  “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
  (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
  (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”
• Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971: This section specifies the punishment for contempt of court, which may include simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
  
  “12. Punishment for contempt of court.—
  (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided elsewhere in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
  Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.”
• Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971: This section specifies the procedure for taking cognizance of criminal contempt.
• Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971: This section provides for appeals in cases of contempt.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is enacted under the powers conferred by Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves.

Arguments

The appellant, represented by Mr. K K Mani, learned senior counsel, argued that he had submitted an apology and that it should be accepted by the court.

The appellant did not specifically argue on the merits of the case, rather, he focused on seeking leniency based on his apology.

The Madras High Court argued that the appellant’s behavior was thoroughly contemptuous. They highlighted the obstruction of justice during the execution of the non-bailable warrant, as recorded in video footage. The High Court also pointed out the appellant’s wanton allegations against the Single Judge and the improper grounds for seeking recusal of one of the judges. The High Court also noted that the appellant sought multiple adjournments to delay the proceedings, only to file sub-applications with allegations against two judges, which he later withdrew.

The High Court contended that the finding of contempt, as well as the sentence, were proportionate and that the debarment from practicing for one year was in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106].

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that it was a simple apology without contesting the merits of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but the central issue was:

1. Whether the conduct of the appellant in obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant and other actions constituted contempt of court warranting punishment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106], Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to justify the debarment of the appellant from practicing as an advocate for one year. The Supreme Court in this case had held that advocates who are found guilty of contempt can be barred from practicing.

Judgment

R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106]* was used by the court to justify the debarment of the appellant from practicing as an advocate for one year.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The clear obstruction of justice by the appellant and other advocates when they prevented the police from executing a lawful court order.
• The video evidence that corroborated the obstruction.
• The wanton allegations made by the appellant against the Single Judge of the Madras High Court.
• The improper grounds on which the appellant sought the recusal of one of the judges.
• The appellant’s repeated attempts to delay the proceedings by seeking multiple adjournments and filing sub-applications with allegations against two judges, which he later withdrew.
• The need to maintain the dignity and authority of the courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual findings and legal principles. The factual aspects of the case, such as the obstruction of justice and the appellant’s conduct, played a significant role in the Court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and the precedent set in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106], also played a crucial role.

The court’s reasoning was clear and straightforward. The court found that the appellant’s actions were a clear obstruction of justice and a blatant disregard for the authority of the court. The court also noted that the appellant had made serious allegations against the Single Judge without any basis and that he had sought the recusal of one of the judges on improper grounds. The court concluded that the appellant’s conduct was a clear violation of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and that he deserved to be punished.

The Court considered the arguments made by the appellant, but ultimately rejected them, finding that the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and that his actions were clearly contemptuous.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, stating that:

“The behaviour and conduct of the appellant, who is a member of the Bar has been thoroughly contemptuous. There was a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice when the non-bailable warrant was sought to be served on him by the competent police officials, which has been recorded in the video footage. The appellant is complicit in the obstruction of justice.”

The Court also noted that:

“That apart, wanton allegations have been levelled against the Single Judge of the Madras High Court who issued the non-bailable warrant. Further, a recusal was sought of one of the Judges hearing the proceedings thereafter on thoroughly improper grounds.”

The Supreme Court further stated that:

“The appellant has no respect for the administration of justice. The finding of contempt, as well as the sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate. Similarly, the debarment from practicing for a period of one year is in accordance with the judgment of this Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Obstructing the execution of a court order, especially by members of the legal profession, is a serious offense that can lead to contempt of court charges.
• Making unwarranted allegations against judges and seeking recusal on improper grounds can also be considered contemptuous behavior.
• The courts have the power to punish those who obstruct the administration of justice, including barring them from practicing as advocates.
• Apologies may not be sufficient to overturn a conviction for contempt of court if the conduct is egregious.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no analysis of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that obstructing the execution of a court order, making wanton allegations against judges, and seeking recusal on improper grounds constitute contempt of court, warranting punishment, including debarment from practice. This case reinforces the existing legal position on contempt of court and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Madras High Court’s conviction of the appellant for contempt of court. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting court orders and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The judgment serves as a reminder that obstructing justice and making baseless allegations against judges can have severe consequences, particularly for members of the legal profession.

Category

Parent Category: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Child Category: Section 2(c)(iii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Criminal Contempt

Parent Category: Legal Profession

Child Category: Professional Misconduct

Parent Category: Court Orders

Child Category: Obstruction of Justice

FAQ

Q: What is contempt of court?

A: Contempt of court is any act that shows disrespect for the court or interferes with the administration of justice. This can include disobeying court orders, disrupting court proceedings, or making false statements to the court.

Q: What is criminal contempt of court?

A: Criminal contempt of court is defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 as any act that interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice.

Q: Can a lawyer be held in contempt of court?

A: Yes, lawyers are expected to uphold the dignity of the court and are not exempt from contempt proceedings. In fact, their conduct is often scrutinized more closely due to their role in the legal system.

Q: What are the consequences of being found guilty of contempt of court?

A: The consequences can include imprisonment, fines, and, in the case of lawyers, being barred from practicing.

Q: What should you do if you are served with a court order?

A: It is important to comply with court orders. If you have concerns, it is best to seek legal advice and raise your concerns through the proper legal channels.