Contempt Cannot Be Purged Merely By Paying Lip-Service To The Term "Apology": Calcutta HC Imposes ₹1L Fine On Advocate

A Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya found that he had filed an application with the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking withdrawal of his case from the State Bar Council, despite the High Court having reserved its decision on the same matter. The Court said, “this court of the clear opinion that there was a willful and deliberate attempt on the part of the contemnor to thwart the order of this court dated December 13, 2023 passed in the writ petition, which cannot be said to have been purged merely by paying lip-service to the term “apology” by seeking an unqualified apology by filing a supplementary affidavit today.”

The Court added, “the very act of the contemnor in filing the same at a juncture when judgment had been reserved in the matter after hearing both sides shows the contumacious action of the contemnor in seeking to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition.”

Advocate Deepan Sarkar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Krishnaraj Thaker appeared for the Respondent.

The Court noted that only eight days had passed between the conclusion of the final hearing in December 2023 and the pending judgment on his petition. The petition primarily concerned the timeline for disposing of complaints before the State Bar Council, under which complaints not resolved within one year automatically transfer to the BCI.

While he argued that the one-year period starts from the complaint's filing date with the State Bar Council, the Court ruled that it commences only when the Council refers the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.

The Court observed his substantial experience in the legal profession and asserted that he could not have misinterpreted the Advocates Act provisions so naively. It emphasized his deliberate attempt to hinder the court's forthcoming judgment by approaching the BCI for withdrawal of his complaint.

The Court said, “the contemnor not only abstained from withdrawing or seeking a postponement of his application before the Bar Council of India (BCI) but complied with the directive of the Bar Council of India on the contemnor‟s application by withdrawing the appeal to facilitate further proceeding before the BCI.”

Regarding his actions before the BCI, the Court noted that he had complied with BCI directives to withdraw his appeal from the High Court, aiming to facilitate further proceedings before the bar body. The Court said, “the contemnor boldly proceeded with the application before the Bar Council of India, merely pointing out before the Bar Council of India that an order had been passed in the meantime before by this court, apparently to save the contemnor‟s skin so that the contemnor was not held guilty of suppression of the order subsequently.”

Considering the gravity of contempt, the Court ordered him to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to any Advocates' benevolent fund of the Calcutta High Court by August 9, 2024. The Court refrained from imposing a prison sentence and said, “this court is not unmindful of the standing of the contemnor in the legal profession and the number of years put behind the profession by the contemnor which standing, although his nemesis in the contempt application, justifies a somewhat lenient view to be taken, since if the contemnor is committed to prison, the same may have an irreversible adverse effect on his career.”

Cause Title: Debanjan Mondal v. Somabrata Mandal

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Biswajit Kumar, Soumya Chowdhury, and Susera Mitra

Respondent: Advocates Krishnaraj Thaker, Rohan Raj, Indranil Munshi, Vedika Bhotika, Anushka Sarkhel, and Soumavo Mukherjee