Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction, Modifies Sentence for Advocate Misconduct (10 May 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 449
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Can an advocate’s misconduct towards a judge be excused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving an advocate who was found guilty of contempt of court for misbehaving with a Chief Judicial Magistrate. This judgment clarifies the high standards of conduct expected from legal professionals and the consequences of failing to uphold them. The bench consisted of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident on 21st December 2012, where the appellant, an advocate, allegedly entered the chamber of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Allahabad during lunch hour without permission. It is alleged that he hurled abuses at the CJM, attempted to assault him, and threatened him with dire consequences. This incident stemmed from the advocate’s dissatisfaction with the CJM’s handling of a case in which he was representing a client. The advocate had filed an application on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Shukla on 19.10.2012 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The advocate alleged that the CJM was biased towards the accused and had not passed an order for lodging an FIR as requested.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court found the advocate guilty of criminal contempt based on the allegations that he entered the CJM’s chamber with junior advocates, misbehaved, and attempted to assault him. The High Court rejected the advocate’s defense that he did not enter the chamber or misbehave, deeming it a fabricated story. The High Court also noted that the CJM did not reject the application outright but rather followed the due process of law. The High Court emphasized the need to curb the increasing tendency of advocates making false allegations against Presiding Officers. The advocate was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2000, and was barred from entering the District Judgeship premises for six months.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(c), which defines criminal contempt. The High Court held that the advocate’s actions constituted criminal contempt as they lowered the authority of the Court, scandalized the Court, and interfered with the administration of justice. The advocate had filed applications under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation.

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt as:

“2(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—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”

Arguments

The advocate’s primary defense was that he did not enter the CJM’s chamber on 21st December 2012, nor did he misbehave or threaten the CJM. He claimed that advocates were on strike on that day, making it impossible for him to be in the CJM’s chamber. He also argued that he had filed an application on 8.11.2012, requesting the CJM not to pass any order, as he intended to file a transfer application. He alleged that the CJM had acted with bias towards the accused in the case he was pursuing.

The High Court, however, rejected these arguments, stating that the advocate’s claims were concocted and unsubstantiated. The High Court emphasized that the CJM had not acted improperly by converting the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into a complaint case, as this was a course of action available to him. The High Court also noted that the advocate did not pursue the matter and instead filed another application, which was also converted into a complaint case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in holding the advocate guilty of criminal contempt and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to emphasize the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and the high standards of conduct expected from advocates.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mr. ‘G’, A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, AIR 1954 SC 557*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the high standards of professional conduct expected from advocates.
• Lalit Mohan Das v. Advocate General, Orissa, AIR 1957 SC 250*: The Court used this case to emphasize the duty of advocates to uphold the dignity of the court.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409*: This case was cited to clarify the court’s power to debar an advocate from appearing in court, even if it cannot suspend their license.
• Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 650*: The Court referred to this case to support the view that an advocate found guilty of contempt cannot have an unreserved right to appear in court.
• Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311*: This case was used to distinguish between punishment for contempt and punishment for professional misconduct.
• R K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106*: The Court cited this case to reinforce the idea that an advocate can be disallowed from appearing in court upon being found guilty of contempt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that advocates, as officers of the court, have a responsibility to uphold these values. The Court noted that the advocate’s actions had the effect of weakening public confidence in the judiciary. The Court also considered the lack of remorse shown by the advocate for his misconduct.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The advocate’s behavior was a direct attack on the dignity and authority of the court.
• The advocate, as an officer of the court, had a duty to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.
• The advocate’s actions had the potential to erode public trust in the judiciary.
• The advocate showed no remorse for his misconduct, further aggravating the situation.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In our opinion, an advocate is duty bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court.”
• “The dignity of court is in fact dignity of the system of which an advocate being officer of the court.”
• “Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless preachers so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy.”

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have excused the advocate’s behavior, as the facts were clear and the legal framework was well-established. The Court emphasized that such misconduct cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with strictly to maintain the integrity of the judiciary.

Key Takeaways

• Advocates must maintain a high standard of professional conduct and respect towards the judiciary.
• Misbehavior and threats towards judges can lead to contempt of court charges.
• Courts have the power to debar advocates from appearing before them for misconduct.
• The independence and dignity of the judiciary must be protected at all costs.
• Lack of remorse for misconduct can aggravate the consequences for the contemnor.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the sentence imposed by the High Court as follows:

1. The sentence of imprisonment of six months was suspended for a further period of three years, subject to the advocate maintaining good conduct.
2. The advocate was prohibited from entering the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad, for a further period of three years, commencing from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2022.
3. The advocate was required to deposit a fine of Rs. 2000. Failure to deposit the fine would result in a three-month ban from entering the District Judgeship premises.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that advocates, as officers of the court, must maintain a high standard of professional conduct and respect towards the judiciary. Misbehavior and threats towards judges constitute criminal contempt of court and can lead to debarment from appearing before the court. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the advocate for criminal contempt but modified the sentence, emphasizing the need for advocates to maintain high standards of conduct. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the dignity and independence of the judiciary and the consequences of failing to do so. The Court’s decision underscores that advocates, as officers of the court, have a responsibility to act with respect and integrity, and any deviation from this standard will be dealt with strictly.

Category

✓ Contempt of Court
✓ Criminal Contempt
✓ Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
✓ Section 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
✓ Legal Profession
✓ Advocate Conduct
✓ Professional Ethics
✓ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
✓ Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is criminal contempt of court?
A: Criminal contempt of court includes actions that scandalize or lower the authority of the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.

Q: What are the responsibilities of an advocate?
A: Advocates are officers of the court and have a duty to maintain high standards of professional conduct, respect the judiciary, and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

Q: Can a court debar an advocate from appearing before it?
A: Yes, a court can debar an advocate from appearing before it for misconduct, even if it cannot suspend the advocate’s license to practice law.

Q: What was the outcome of this Supreme Court case?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the advocate for criminal contempt but modified the sentence, suspending the imprisonment and imposing additional restrictions on entering the District Judgeship premises.

Q: What does the judgment mean for the legal profession?
A: The judgment serves as a reminder that advocates must maintain high standards of conduct and respect towards the judiciary. Misbehavior and threats towards judges will not be tolerated and will be dealt with strictly by the courts.