Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction of Advocate for Misconduct: Gulshan Bajwa vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2024)

Date of the Judgment: January 30, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 74

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can an advocate’s repeated misconduct and disrespectful behavior towards the court and fellow advocates constitute contempt of court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, upholding the conviction of a lawyer for criminal contempt. The court examined whether the High Court of Delhi was justified in punishing the advocate for his actions, which included making threatening remarks, filing baseless allegations, and showing disrespect to the judiciary. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of acceptable conduct for legal professionals and underscores the importance of maintaining the dignity of the courts. Justices Vikram Nath and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a series of incidents involving the appellant, an advocate, in the High Court of Delhi. On August 17, 2006, during a writ petition hearing, the appellant threatened a lady advocate representing the opposing side. The High Court took note of this conduct and directed the appellant to explain his actions. Subsequently, the appellant failed to appear in court on multiple occasions and filed applications containing reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges. The High Court also discovered that the appellant had been filing transfer applications on behalf of his clients without their knowledge. These actions led to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant.

The High Court, after numerous attempts to secure the appellant’s presence, eventually issued non-bailable warrants. The appellant was finally produced in court on September 18, 2006. The High Court also considered several other instances of misconduct by the appellant in different proceedings, including making allegations against judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and making statements that were deemed disrespectful and threatening. The High Court found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to three months of civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of the two contempt cases.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant due to his misconduct and disrespectful behavior. The High Court issued show cause notices to the appellant, but he failed to appear on multiple occasions. The High Court then issued bailable and subsequently non-bailable warrants to ensure his presence. After numerous attempts, the appellant was finally produced in court. The High Court, after considering the appellant’s conduct and submissions, found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Act empowers the High Courts to punish individuals for contempt of court. The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant under this Act. The Supreme Court also referred to previous decisions to highlight the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and protecting judicial officers from malicious allegations. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was correct in not accepting the apology tendered by the appellant as it was not bonafide and lacked sincerity.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The notice in one of the connected matters was issued by a judge who is still a member of the Supreme Court, therefore, the matter should be heard by a bench presided by that judge.
• None of the connected matters are related to the contempt petition and should be de-tagged and heard separately.
• The Court Martial proceedings relied upon by the High Court are not relevant to the present proceedings.
• The matters before the High Court were being adjourned without a pass-over being granted on the first call.
• The threat given to the lady advocate was nothing but elderly advice.
• No show cause notice in the contempt proceedings was served on him.
• All the transfer petitions and the underlying matters were transferred to one single bench without following the rules framed by the High Court relating to assignment of matters.
• The judges who heard his case and issued notice under the Act were biased against him.
• The appellant challenged all other proceedings initiated against him on the ground that the authorities conducting such proceedings were biased against him.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The order of the High Court was rendered after a detailed consideration of the material placed before them.
• The appellant had appeared before the Court pursuant to service of a show cause notice under the Act.
• The appellant has never apologized for his actions and continues to make reckless allegations against Judges and the Judiciary.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the threat to the lady advocate was merely “elderly advice” is a novel attempt to downplay his misconduct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the primary issue before the court was whether the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant for contempt of court based on his conduct and statements made in court and in various applications. The sub-issues were:

• Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Whether the High Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court.
• Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate.

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:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the authorities to emphasize the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and to highlight that an apology must be sincere and not merely a tool to evade punishment. The Court also used the authorities to reinforce the idea that judicial officers should be protected from malicious and unfounded allegations.

• M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600:* This case was cited to emphasize the need to protect judicial independence from acts that malign the reputation of judicial officers.
• Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529:* This case was used to reiterate that a contemnor should be punished for making libellous and motivated allegations against the Court and its Judges.
• Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re, (1998) 7 SCC 248:* This case was cited to highlight the importance of protecting the dignity of the Court and the majesty of the law.
• M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur, (1955) 1 SCR 757:* This case was used to emphasize that an apology must evidence genuine remorse and not be used as a weapon to evade punishment.
• Omesh Saigal and State v. R.K. Dalmia, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 179:* This case was cited to support the view that an apology lacking sincerity and contriteness cannot be accepted.
• L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405:* This case was also cited to support the view that an apology lacking sincerity and contriteness cannot be accepted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the appellant’s repeated acts of misconduct and disrespect towards the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s actions were not isolated incidents but rather a pattern of behavior aimed at undermining the authority and dignity of the courts. The Court noted that the appellant’s conduct included making threatening remarks, filing baseless allegations, and showing a lack of remorse for his actions. The Court also observed that the appellant’s apology was not genuine and lacked sincerity. The Court was also influenced by the need to protect judicial officers from malicious and unfounded allegations and to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s arguments but found them unconvincing. The Court noted that the appellant’s conduct was a clear attempt to undermine the judicial system and that his apology was not genuine. The Court also considered the need to protect judicial officers from malicious allegations. The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding bias and procedural irregularities and upheld the High Court’s conviction while modifying the sentence.

The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also noted that the High Court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and precedents. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that the High Court was biased against him, stating that he failed to provide any cogent evidence to support this claim.

The Supreme Court quoted:

• “We are in complete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations.”
• “The appellant’s conduct before the High Court and for that matter, even before this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration.”
• “An apology must evidence remorse with respect to the contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge the guilty of their offence.”

The Court did not have a dissenting opinion; both judges concurred on the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Advocates must maintain the dignity of the court and refrain from making disrespectful or threatening remarks.
• Filing baseless allegations and transfer petitions without the knowledge of clients is a serious breach of professional conduct.
• Apologies must be genuine and sincere to be accepted by the court.
• Repeated misconduct can lead to contempt of court proceedings and punishment.
• Judicial officers must be protected from malicious and unfounded allegations.

The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and the need for legal professionals to conduct themselves with respect and decorum. The potential future impact of this judgment is that it serves as a reminder to advocates that they are officers of the court and must uphold the highest standards of professional conduct.

Directions

The Supreme Court de-tagged the three other connected matters and directed them to be listed for hearing separately.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that repeated acts of misconduct and disrespect towards the judiciary by an advocate can constitute criminal contempt of court, warranting punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity of the courts and protecting judicial officers from malicious allegations. There was no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforced the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the advocate, Gulshan Bajwa, upholding his conviction for criminal contempt of court by the High Court of Delhi. The Court, however, modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, considering his age and medical condition. The judgment serves as a reminder to legal professionals about the importance of maintaining the dignity of the court and upholding ethical standards.