Duty Of Every Court To Nip At Bud Experimental Litigations With Mischievous Object: Kerala HC Imposes ₹1L Cost On Advocate For Contempt Allegations Against Judicial Officer
The Kerala High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on an Advocate for initiating a contempt case against a judicial officer.
The Court emphasised that it is the duty of every court to nip at the bid such experimental litigations designed with mischievous object.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran remarked, “In cases where there is no contempt at all and where a court of law finds that the contempt petition is mischievous, frivolous and vexatious as found in the instant facts, the Court can certainly invoke its inherent power, besides the power of every High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, to deal with the situation suitably, by mulcting exemplary cost, so as to save abuse of process of court. In fact, it is the duty of every court to nip at the bud such experimental litigations, designed with mischievous object.”
The Bench said that the overall conduct of the petitioner is nothing, but gross abuse of process of the Court.
Advocates Vadakara V.V.N. Menon and N.S. Gopakumar represented the petitioner.
In this case, the petitioner was the counsel for the defendants in a suit before the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam. The petitioner hurled allegations of contempt not only against a judicial officer, but also against his own counter-part appearing for the plaintiffs. Initially, a defect was noted by the Registry as to whether it is proper to array a judicial officer and the counsel for the parties as contemners in the proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, the High Court queried to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is serious in prosecuting the Contempt Case, to which query, an emphatic affirmation was the answer.
In view of Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with contempt by Judge, Magistrate etc., the Court directed the contempt case to be numbered. It was so done and the counsel for the petitioner was heard in extenso, as regards the maintainability and entertainability of the contempt petition, as also, the mode and manner in which contempt was sought to be alleged against the respondents/alleged contemners.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “This Court is called upon to perform the unfortunate task of answering allegations of contempt against i). a judicial officer, ii). the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and iii). plaintiff nos.1 and 3 on rather strange, weird and specious grounds.”
The Court said that there is a complete lack of bonafides in alleging contempt against a judicial officer, as also, against other respondents.
“Can it be believed for a moment that the petitioner, being a lawyer, was misled or misconceived in alleging contempt against the respondents herein? Is he not aware that the order in Annexure-I judgment is complied with, wherefore, no contempt will lie against the learned Munsiff? Is he not aware that not following a precedent cannot amount to contempt? Can we attach any bonafides in the allegation that the learned Munsiff committed contempt in considering I.A.No.8/2024? Was not the learned Munsiff merely performing her bounden duty in doing so? Is not the petitioner aware that a contempt, by any stretch of imagination, would not lie against respondents 2 to 4 herein, for, there was no order or judgment directing them to do something, regard being had to the definition of a civil contempt? Can we attribute any bonafides, whatsoever, - leave alone the merits - in this Contempt Case? Does not the overall facts and circumstances taken together suggest a malafide/oblique/sinister motive in moving this Contempt Case?”, it further asked.
The Court added that the answers to the above questions are not far to seek and the same would only point fingers against the petitioner and his intent/motive in initiating the present proceeding. The Court also noted that the petitioner/lawyer is duly represented by another lawyer before the Court, wherefore, the petitioner cannot, by any reckoning, plead ignorance with respect to the afore-referred aspects, especially in making wanton allegations of contempt against a judicial officer.
“The above referred facts leave no room for this Court, but to mulct exemplary cost on the petitioner in abusing the process of this Court and wasting the time of this Court. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to pay exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, Ernakulam, within a period of one month from today, the date of pronouncement of this judgment. In doing so, this Court invokes its inherent powers as available to every court of law to pass such orders which the interests of justice warrant. The confines as regards the courses of action in terms of the Contempt of Court Act would apply, only if this Court finds that a contempt would lie, prima facie”, it directed.
The Court concluded that if the cost as directed is not paid, Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA) will initiate steps to recover the same, treating it as arrears of land revenue.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of its judgment to KELSA for necessary action.
Cause Title- P.M. Kurian v. Deepa Mohanan & Ors.
