Unconditional Apology Will Not Dilute Contempt Committed By Advocate For Using Scathing Remarks Against Judicial Officers: Gauhati HC

By invoking the power under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution, the Gauhati High Court imposed a suspended sentence of simple imprisonment on the Contemnor Advocate for a period of six months, and also debarred him from appearing as an advocate before this Court and before the District Judiciary under the jurisdiction of this Court for a period of fifteen days.

Finding that the Respondent (Contemnor Advocate) had not only expressed his doubt on the legal knowledge of the judicial officers, but also assassinated their character and questioned the judiciary as a whole, which amounts to gross interference with the administration of justice, a Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Devashis Baruah observed that “unconditional apology tendered by the respondent- contemnor is not found sufficient to dilute/ denude the fierce intensity by which the respondent-contemnor had committed the contempt of Court by using harsh and unacceptable language against the judicial officers concerned, thereby undermining their integrity while discharging their official duty”.

SC, GHC appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Z Kamar appeared for the Respondent.

Going by the background of the case, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 24 of the CPC for transferring some cases pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge (Educational Tribunal), Jorhat to the Court of District Judge, Jorhat. In the said petition, the Respondent had impleaded the then Addl. District Judge, Jorhat by name. When it came to notice that a judicial officer was made a party in the said proceeding, the District Judge interacted with the Respondent to ascertain if any genuine mistake was committed in arraying the concerned judicial officer by name. When the Respondent admitted such fact of ex facie derogatory remark against the judiciary in general and the concerned officer in particular, the District Judge passed an order on the administrative side, thereby deferring registration of any miscellaneous case and asked the Respondent to make necessary corrections in the petition, which was apparently refused. Instead, the Respondent issued an advocate’s notice under Section 80 CPC seeking permission to prosecute the Sheristadar as well as the District and Sessions Judge, Jorhat. Therefore, on the ground that the Respondent had overstepped the limit of fair and reasonable criticism, the District Judge made a reference to this Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the Respondent.

From a perusal of the application filed by the Respondent before the District Judge under Section 24 of the CPC, and notice under Section 80 CPC, the High Court found that a scathing attack has been made by the Respondent not only against the concerned judicial officer, but also against the judiciary in general and moreover, wild and unfounded derogatory allegations are made against the Committee of Judges of this Court who are in any manner associated in the task of selection of judicial officers.

“The language used, if not deprecated in the strongest terms, is bound to have a cascading and/or telling effect on the administration of justice. The respondent-contemnor is a practicing advocate, which is considered to be a noble profession and once he wears the uniform of an advocate and starts practicing in Court, it cannot be acceptable that the respondent-contemnor has no knowledge of law or that he did not know the implication of the words used by him in course of Court proceeding”, added the Court.

The Bench highlighted that disparaging comments and remarks including personal insinuations amounting to character assassination of judicial officers were made by the Respondent with full knowledge and understanding of the extent of damage or hurt that those words would cause to the concerned judicial officers in particular and judiciary as a whole.

The Bench also found that when the District Judge had asked the Respondent to make necessary corrections in his petition, the Respondent not only refused to comply with same, rather, he issued notice under Section 80 CPC seeking permission to prosecute the then Sheristadar as well as the then District and Sessions Judge, as well as questioned the power of the Sheristadar to refer to legal provision by stating that no administrative officer/ assistant having no legal degree and power can cite law point/ argument on law/ rules.

Hence, observing that the action of Respondent in threatening a Judicial officer is bound to encourage other members of the Bar all over the Country to use disrespectful and threatening language against a judicial officer whenever any unfavorable orders are passed against their interest, the High Court opined that the punishment has to be meted out to him.

Cause Title: XXX v. In Re – Utpal Goswami, Advocate, Jorhat Bar Association

Click here to read/download the Order