O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

O.P. Sharma & Ors. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

High Court of Punjab & Haryana .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1206 OF 2004

J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1108-1115 of 2004 are directed

against the common judgment and final order dated

25.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. O.C.P. Nos. 18 and

25 of 1999, Crl. O.C.P. Nos. 3,4,5,18,19 and 20 of 2001

whereby the Division Bench after rejecting the claim of the

appellants herein found all of them guilty of criminal contempt

and convicted them under Section 12 read with Sections 15 1

and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act")and sentenced them to various terms of

simple imprisonment and fine. Feeling aggrieved by the order

of conviction and sentence, one Surinder Sharma has filed Crl.

A. No. 1206 of 2004. Since the issue in all these appeals is

common and relate to one incident, they are being disposed of

by the following judgment.

2) Brief facts:

(a) The District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, by his letter

dated 16.09.1999, addressed to the Registrar, High Court of

Punjab & Haryana, forwarded Letter No. 376 dated 14.09.1999

written by Shri Rakesh Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division-

cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class) Faridabad which was

addressed to him. In the said letter, the Judicial Magistrate

has stated that on 11.09.1999 at about 3 p.m., when he was

dealing with the remand of accused Soran in FIR No. 136

dated 13.06.1999, under Sections 393/452/506/34 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC")

pertaining to Police Station Chhainsa, the Assistant Public

Prosecutor requested him for remanding the accused to police

2

custody. By that time, Mr. L.N. Prashar, Advocate, one of the

contemnors/appellants herein, who represented the accused,

opposed the request of police remand. After hearing the

arguments, the Magistrate remanded the accused to police

custody. When the order of police remand was not found

favourable, Mr. L.N. Prashar, advocate became enraged and

started hurling abuses and derogatory remarks against him.

Upon hearing the remarks, he tried to pacify him and

requested him to behave properly but he did not relent and

again uttered unparliamentary words and also threatened him

with dire consequences.

(b) It was further stated that the accused Soran was being

produced in four criminal cases on that very day and was

being represented by Mr. Prashar in all the matters. When he

took another remand paper of the same accused, Mr. Prashar

became furious and again uttered unparliamentary words and

also threatened him. When he kept on sitting on the dias, Mr.

Prashar called his fellow colleagues including Mr. O.P.

Sharma, Rajinder Sharma, Surinder Sharma, Advocates, in

total about 15-20 advocates, who all belonged to the same

3

group. Then, he requested Mr. O.P. Sharma, who is a senior

member of the Bar, to request Mr. Prashar to behave properly

in the Court. However, Mr. O.P. Sharma sided with Mr.

Prashar and along with other advocates shouted slogans and

abused in filthy language and also threatened him.

(c) It was further stated that advocates were very aggressive

and wanted to assault him physically. To avoid any further

deterioration in the situation, he retired to his Chamber. One

of his staff members, namely, Shri Raj Kumar, Ahlmad, had

informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and the

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad about the incident

and they came to his Chamber and they also overheard Mr.

Prashar shouting in the Court. After sometime, Mr. O.P.

Goyal, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad came there

and pacified the advocates.

(d) In continuation of his letter dated 14.09.1999, the

Magistrate addressed another letter dated 24.09.1999 to the

District Judge, Faridabad. In the said letter, it was stated that

Mr. Prashar and Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocates had criminal

4

record and these persons have indulged in pressure tactics

since long and highlighted all the details about them.

(e) The entire incident was published in a local newspaper

`Mazdoor Morcha' which necessitated action under the Act

against Shri Satish Kumar, owner, publisher, printer and

Editor of the said newspaper.

(f) Based on the letter of the District & Sessions Judge as

well as letter of the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, the High

Court took the matter by suo motu and initiated contempt

proceedings against the contemnors under Section 2(c) of the

Act relating to the incident which took place on 11.09.1999 in

the Court of Shri Rakesh Singh, Civil Judge, Faridabad for

taking appropriate action.

3) Before the High Court, the respective

contemnors/advocates filed affidavits highlighting the

circumstances under which the unfortunate incident occurred

and by filing separate affidavits they tendered unconditional

apology and also regretted for the same. On direction by the

High Court, all of them appeared before the Magistrate

concerned and expressed their regret and also tendered

5

unconditional apology. The Division Bench, taking note of

seriousness of the issue and finding that the reference made

by the Magistrate is based upon correct facts and overall

conduct of the contemnors found all of them guilty of criminal

contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and

imposed simple imprisonment of six months/three months

with a fine of Rs.1,000-2,000/- each. As stated earlier,

challenging the said conviction and sentence, the above

appeals have been filed.

4) Heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani and Mr. V. Giri, learned

senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Chandra

Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent.

Submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani

5) At the outset, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior

counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the fact

that the appellants herein, after realizing their mistake

immediately, offered unconditional apology by filing affidavits

before the High Court and also appeared before the Magistrate

before whom the unfortunate incident had occurred, tendered

apology and regret for their action, prayed for leniency and

6

setting aside the order of the High Court sentencing the

contemnors to jail. He also submitted that inasmuch as the

alleged incident had occurred in September, 1999, considering

the passage of time and by realizing the mistake tendered

unconditional apology before the High Court as well as before

the concerned Magistrate, their sentence of imprisonment may

be set aside. He further submitted that all the

appellants/contemnors prepared to file fresh affidavits

conveying their unconditional apology and regret for the

incident and also assured that they would not indulge in such

activities in future.

Controversial behaviour of the Contemnors

6) Before considering the acceptability of the affidavits filed

by the appellants, in order to visualize seriousness of the

matter, it is useful to refer the exchange of words and

behaviour of the appellants (in English version) while the

Magistrate remanded the accused Soran to police custody.

They are:

"You have taken bribe. You do all works only after taking

bribe. You are indulging in gangism."

"What can you do to me. You may make contempt against

me. I will suck your blood. I will not leave you till High

7

Court. Bahanchod, you are considering this Court as inn.

Come out, we will just now teach you a taste of Judgeship.

My name is L.N. Prashar. You will come to know today as to

how you pass orders against me. Even earlier, criminal

cases are pending against me. If one more case proceeds

against me, it would make no difference. It would cause you

very clearly to have an enmity with me and now I will see to

it that I suck your blood. If you have any courage, you come

out."

7) When the Magistrate took up another remand paper of

the same accused, Mr. Prashar, again became furious and

uttered that:

"You dismiss this bail application. I have no faith in your

Court. I am not going to furnish any bail bonds. There is no

need for us to have any bail from your Court."

8) At that stage, the Magistrate asked his Reader to call the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad so that the situation

could be brought under control. On this, Mr. Prashar

remarked:

"What can your CJM do. You may call him as well. We will

see your CJM also. You are indulging in big gangism."

9) Thereafter, the Magistrate requested Mr. O.P. Sharma,

Advocate, who is a senior member of the Bar, to request Mr.

Prashar to behave properly in the Court. However, Mr. O.P.

Sharma, Advocate, sided with Mr. Prashar and shouted.

8 "We will do like this only. Lock his Court and raise slogans

against him.... On the asking of Shri O.P. Sharma, Advocate,

other Advocates accompanying him raised slogans, "RAKESH

SINGH MURDABAD, RAKESH SINGH MURDABAD.....

..... He was also threatened by saying you come out. We will

see your gangism."

10) When all the officers were sitting in the chamber of the

Magistrate, they over-heard Mr. Prashar shouting in the Court

in loud voice saying,

"You are indulging in gangism. You are passing orders of

your choice. The contempt can not harm me. I will see to it

as to how you remain in service."

Professional Conduct and Etiquette - Rules and decisions

of this Court

11) In the light of the above scenario, before considering the

fresh affidavits filed before this Court by the appellants-

Advocates, let us recapitulate various earlier orders of this

Court as to the duties of lawyer towards the Court and the

Society being a member of the legal profession.

12) The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of

Sovereign and Democratic India is accounted as extremely

vital in deciding that the Nation's administration was to be

governed by the Rule of Law. They were considered

intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social

9

activists amongst the downtrodden. These include the names

of galaxy of lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru,

Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr.

Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to name a few. The

role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no

special mention. In a profession with such a vivid history

it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the

nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the

Court in the administration of justice.

13) Section I of Chapter-II, Part VI titled "Standards of

Professional Conduct and Etiquette" of the Bar Council of India

Rules specifies the duties of an advocate towards the Court

which reads as under:

"Section I - Duty to the Court

1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and

while otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with

dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and whenever

there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial

officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to

proper authorities.

2. An advocate shall maintain towards the courts a respectful

attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office

is essential for the survival of a free community.

3. An advocate shall not influence the decision of a court by

any illegal or improper means. Private communications with a

judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.

10

4. An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and

prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices

or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing

counsel or parties which the advocates himself ought not to

do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who

persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider

himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise

his own judgement in the use of restrained language in

correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and

using intemperate language during arguments in court.

5. An advocate shall appear in court at all times only in the

prescribed dress, and his appearance shall always be

presentable.

6. An advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or

practise in any way before a court, Tribunal or Authority

mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any member

thereof is related to the advocate as father, grandfather, son,

grand-son, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband,

wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law,

mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law daughter-in-law or

sister-in-law.

For the purposes of this rule, Court shall mean a Court,

Bench or Tribunal in which above mentioned relation of the

Advocate is a Judge, Member or the Presiding Officer.

7. An advocate shall not wear bands or gown in public places

other than in courts except on such ceremonial occasions and

at such places as the Bar Council of India or the court may

prescribe.

8. An advocate shall not appear in or before any court or

tribunal or any other authority for or against an organisation

or an institution, society or corporation, if he is a member of

the Executive Committee of such organisation or institution or

society or corporation. "Executive Committee ", by whatever

name it may be called, shall include any Committee or body of

persons which, for the time being, is vested with the general

management of the affairs of the organisation or institution,

society or corporation.

Provided that this rule shall not apply to such a member

appearing as "amicus curiae" or without a fee on behalf of a

Bar Council, Incorporated Law Society or a Bar Association.

11

9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which

he is himself peculiarly interested.

Illustration

I. He should not act in a bankruptcy petition when he himself

is also a creditor of the bankrupt.

II. He should not accept a brief from a company of which he is

Director.

10. An advocate shall not stand as a surety, or certify the

soundness of a surety for his client required for the purpose of

any legal proceedings."

14) In the case of Daroga Singh and Others vs. B.K.

Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, one Additional District and

Sessions Judge was attacked in a pre-planned and calculated

manner in his courtroom and chamber by police officials for

not passing an order they sought. This Court held that,

"The Courts cannot be compelled to give "command orders".

The act committed amounts to deliberate interference with

the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation

apart from scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court

and interference with the administration of justice. The effect

of such an act is not confined to a particular court or a

district, or the State, it has the tendency to effect the entire

judiciary in the country. It is a dangerous trend. Such a

trend has to be curbed. If for passing judicial orders to the

annoyance of the police the presiding officers of the Courts

are to be assaulted and humiliated the judicial system in the

country would collapse."

12 15) In R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7

SCC 264, this Court held as under:

"In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the

legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon)

light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated

and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from

the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most

respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed

to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his

rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate

only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him

under the judicial system prevalent in the country........"

16) In Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.,

(1999) 1 SCC 37, this Court held that it is the solemn duty of

every Court to proceed with judicial function during Court

hours and no Court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott

calls or any kind of browbeating. The Bench as well as the

Bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that

hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none.

17) In the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re: ,

(1998) 7 SCC 248, the advocate was charged of criminal

contempt of Court for the use of intemperate language and

casting unwarranted aspersions on various judicial officers

and attributing motives to them while discharging their

judicial functions. This Court held as under:

13 "The subordinate judiciary forms the very backbone of

administration of justice. This Court would come down a

heavy hand for preventing the judges of the subordinate

judiciary or the High Court from being subjected to

scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have

the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to

lower the authority of any court as also all such actions

which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of

any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the

administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to

the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice

cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The

protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to

discharge their judicial functions without fear."

18) In Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors.,

(1998) 4 SCC 577, this Court deprecated the practice of

making allegations against the Judges and observed as under:

"Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat

the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a

favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their

duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and

in the result administration of justice would become a

casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges

are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear

or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to

"terrorize" or "intimidate" Judges with a view to "secure"

orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and

no civilised system of administration of justice can permit

it........"

Similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal vs.

Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427.

19) Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of

freedom of expression. It is a practical manifestation of the

principle of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression in

14

arguments encourages the development of judicial dignity,

forensic skills of advocacy and enables protection of fraternity,

equality and justice. It plays its part in helping to secure the

protection or other fundamental human rights, freedom of

expression, therefore, is one of the basic conditions for the

progress of advocacy and for the development of every man

including legal fraternity practising the profession of law.

Freedom of expression, therefore, is vital to the maintenance of

free society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of the

citizens. The advocate or the party appearing in person,

therefore, is given liberty of expression. But they equally owe

countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in

the court proceedings or judicial processes. Any adverse

opinion about the judiciary should only be expressed in a

detached manner and respectful language. The liberty of free

expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to

make unfounded allegations against any institution, much

less the judiciary [vide D.C. Saxena vs. The Hon'ble Chief

Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216].

15 20) In the matter of In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the

alleged contemner), (1995) 2 SCC 534, the contemner who

was a senior advocate, President of the Bar and Chairman of

the Bar Council of India, on being questioned by the Judge

started to shout and said that no question could have been

put to him and that he will get the High Court Judge

transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought

against him in Parliament. This Court while sentencing him to

simple imprisonment for six weeks suspended him from

practising as an advocate for a period of three years and laid

down as follows:

"The contemner has obviously misunderstood his function

both as a lawyer representing the interests of his client and

as an officer of the court. Indeed, he has not tried to defend

the said acts in either of his capacities. On the other hand,

he has tried to deny them. Hence, much need not be said on

this subject to remind him of his duties in both the

capacities. It is, however, necessary to observe that by

indulging in the said acts, he has positively abused his

position both as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, and

has done distinct disservice to the litigants in general and to

the profession of law and the administration of justice in

particular."

21) In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs.

Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409, a Constitution

Bench of this Court overruled In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra

(the alleged contemner) and held as under:

16 "The power of the Supreme Court to punish for

contempt of court, though quite wide, is yet limited and

cannot be expanded to include the power to determine

whether an advocate is also guilty of "Professional

misconduct" in a summary manner which can only be

done under the procedure prescribed in the Advocates

Act. The power to do complete justice under Article 142

is in a way, corrective power, which gives preference to

equity over law but it cannot be used to deprive a

professional lawyer of the due process contained in

the Advocates Act 1961 by suspending his licence

to practice in a summary manner, while dealing

with a case of contempt of court."

It also opined that:-

"An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court

may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional

misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council

of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that

Advocate by either debarring him from practice or

suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the

facts and circumstances of each case. The learned

Solicitor General informed us that there have been

cases where the Bar Council of India taking note of the

contumacious and objectionable conduct of an

advocate, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against

him and even punished him for "professional

misconduct", on the basis of his having been found

guilty of committing contempt of court. We do not

entertain any doubt that the Bar Council of the State or

Bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised

of the established contumacious conduct of an advocate

by the High Court or by this Court, would rise to the

occasion, and taken appropriate action against such an

advocate. Under Article 144 of the Constitution "all

authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India

shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Bar Council

which performs a public duty and is charged with the

obligation to protect the dignity of the profession and

maintain professional standards and etiquette is also

obliged to act "in aid of the Supreme Court ". It must,

whenever, facts warrant rise to the occasion and

17

discharge its duties uninfluenced by the position of the

contemner advocate. It must act in accordance with the

prescribed procedure, whenever its attention is drawn

by this Court to the contumacious and unbecoming

conduct of an advocate which has the tendency to

interfere with due administration of justice....."

The Bench went on to say :-

".........There is no justification to assume that the Bar

Council is would not rise to the occasion, as they are

equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the courts

and the majesty of law and prevent any interference in

the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the

parties present before us do not dispute and rightly so

that whenever a court of record, records its findings

about the conduct of an Advocate while finding him

guilty of committing contempt of court and desires or

refers the matter to be considered by the concerned Bar

Council, appropriate action should be initiated by the

concerned Bar Council in accordance with law with a

view to maintain the dignity of the courts and to uphold

the majesty of law and professional standards and

etiquette."

22) In M.B. & Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab

& Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600, this Court took notice of the

growing tendency amongst some of the Advocates of adopting

a defiant attitude and casting aspersions having failed to

persuade the Court to grant an order in the terms they expect.

Holding the Advocates guilty of contempt, this Court observed

as under:

18 "The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial

Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the

desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is

nipped fat the bud. And, when a member of the profession

resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating

the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When

there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would

shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system

the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the

concerned Judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary,

Veiled threats, abrasive behavior, use of disrespectful

language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the

present one are often designedly employed with a view to

taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order.

Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of

not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The

foundation of our system which is based on the

independence and impartiality of those who man it will be

shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made

against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is

high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial

independence has to be protected not only from the

executive or the legislature but also from those who are an

integral part of the system."

23) In the case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

(1984) 3 SCC 405, it was held by this Court that acceptance of

an apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of

exception and not that of a rule and expressed its opinion as

under:

"6. We do not think that merely because the appellant has

tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and

allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person

wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest

imputations against him to do, is to go ahead and scandalize

him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs

him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be

accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in

fact be virtually issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts and

commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather

19

difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their

self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay

such a price for it. And no sitting Judge will feel free to

decide any matter as per the of his conscience on account of

the fear of being scandalized and prosecuted by an advocate

who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge

goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be

countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges,

and make them fall in line with their wishes, by threats of

character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by

the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional

ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts.

7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can take a

decision which does not displease one side or the other. By

the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against

one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a

decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were

to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of

the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere,

some day, by someone. That is why the Court is impelled to

act (rather than merely sermonize), much as the Court

dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt

jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very

sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we

can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of

principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been

scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to

show magnanimity when someone else is the victim rather

than when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of

showing indulgence is not very difficult -- in fact it is more

difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to

adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional

perspective demands that considerations of populism are not

allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot

take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the

day when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason

of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly

humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if

any of his orders, or the decision rendered by him,

displeases any of the advocates, appearing in the matter.

24) In the case of R.K. Garg Advocate v. State of

Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 166, where a lawyer hurled

20

a shoe on the judicial officer which hit him on the shoulder,

this Court opined that there is no doubt that the Bar and the

Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism which

administers justice to the people. Many members of the Bench

are drawn from the Bar and their past association is a source

of inspiration and pride to them. It ought to be a matter of

equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably true that courtesy

breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home,

courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is

like an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom. But

members of the Bar will do well to remember that such

flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct

will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without

which no democracy can survive.

25) In Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General, Orissa &

Another, AIR 1957 SC 250, this Court observed as under:

"A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client

and must place before the Court all that can fairly and

reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even

submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for

a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the

Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in

which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and

decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the

Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly

21

overstepped the limits of propriety when he made

imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif

in open Court. In suggesting that the Munsif followed no

principle in his orders, the appellant was adding insult to

injury, because the Munsif had merely upheld an order of

his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and

Court fees, which order had been upheld by the High Court

in revision. Scandalizing the Court in such manner is really

polluting the very fount of justice; such conduct as the

appellant indulged in was not a matter between an

individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial

service; if brought into disrepute the whole administration of

justice."

26) A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and

cannot associate himself with his client in maligning the

reputation of judicial officer merely because his client failed to

secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate

attempt to scandalize the Court which would shake the

confidence of the litigating public in the system and would

cause a very serious damage to the name of the judiciary.

[vide M.Y. Shareef & Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Judges of Nagpur

High Court & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 757; Shamsher Singh Bedi

vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 99 and

M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana

& Ors. (supra)].

27) Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, strenuously

pleaded to accept the solemn statements made by all the

22

appellants-Advocates in the form of affidavits dated

28.04.2011. Now, we are reproducing the affidavit filed before

us by Mr. O.P. Sharma (appellant No.1 herein):

"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1108-1115 OF 2004

In the matter of

O.P. Sharma & Ors. ...........Petitioners

Versus

High Court of Punjab & Haryana ........Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, O.P. Sharma, S/o Late Shri M.R. Sharma aged about 61

years R/o 252 Sector-9, Faridabad, Haryana presently at

New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1. That the Deponent is one of the appellants in the

abovementioned Appeals.

2. That the deponent has the highest and abiding faith in the

institution of Judiciary and can not imagine saying or doing

any thing which would undermine the dignity and prestige of

the institution.

3. That the deponent hereby tenders unconditional apology

before this Hon'ble Court for the incident which took place in

the Courts at Faridabad out of which this contempt

proceedings arise and further undertake to maintain a good

behaviour in future.

4. That at the first available opportunity the unconditional

apology and undertaking for maintaining good behaviour

was filed before the Ld. Magistrate.

Sd/-

Deponent

23

VERIFICATION

I the abovenamed deponent do hereby verify that the

contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my

knowledge.

Verified at New Delhi on this 28th Day of April, 2011.

Sd/-

Deponent"

Similar affidavits have been filed by other appellants

reiterating what they had stated before the High Court and the

Magistrate concerned tendering unconditional apology for the

incident which took place in the Court at Faridabad. They

also assured this Court that they would maintain good

behaviour in future. Though sub-Section 1 of Section 12 of

the Act enables the court to award simple imprisonment for a

term which may extend to six months, proviso empowers the

court that accused may be discharged or punishment awarded

may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of

the court. In fact, Explanation to this Section makes it clear

that an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground

that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona

fide.

24

28) Considering the plea made by Mr. Ram Jethmalani,

learned senior counsel and President of the Supreme Court

Bar Association, in tendering unconditional apology, recorded

even at the initial stage before the High Court and before the

Magistrate, Faridabad before whom the unwanted incident

had occurred and the present affidavits filed before us once

again expressing unconditional apology and regret with an

undertaking that they would maintain good behaviour in

future and in view of the language used in `proviso' and

`explanation' appended to Section 12(1) of the Act, we accept

the affidavits filed by all the Appellants.

29) Shri Satish Kumar, owner, publisher, printer and Editor

of `Majdur Morcha' newspaper has also filed affidavit before

this Court similar to one by the other appellants. Considering

the fact that the newspaper has merely published what had

happened in the Court, we are of the view that it would be just

and fair to apply the same relief to him also. We reiterate that

acceptance of an apology from a contemnor should only be a

matter of exception and not that of a rule.

25

30) A Court, be that of a Magistrate or the Supreme Court is

sacrosanct. The integrity and sanctity of an institution which

has bestowed upon itself the responsibility of dispensing

justice is ought to be maintained. All the functionaries, be it

advocates, judges and the rest of the staff ought to act in

accordance with morals and ethics.

Advocates Role and Ethical Standards:

31) An advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge.

Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A

client's relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by

utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost

sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an

advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be

diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by

which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of

society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation

to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice

system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any

violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate

is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor

26

violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental

foundation of the public justice system. An advocate should

be dignified in his dealings to the Court, to his fellow lawyers

and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance

and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. An

advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in

the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal

profession has an element of service also and associates with

legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully

abide by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette

prescribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of

the Bar Council of India Rules.

32) As a rule, an Advocate being a member of the legal

profession has a social duty to show the people a beacon of

light by his conduct and actions rather than being adamant on

an unwarranted and uncalled for issue.

33) We hope and trust that the entire legal fraternity would

set an example for other professionals by adhering to all the

above-mentioned principles.

27 34) In the light of the above discussion and reasons which we

have noted in the earlier paras and as an exception to the

general rule, we accept the unconditional apology tendered in

the form of affidavits in terms of proviso to Section 12(1) of the

Act and discharge all the appellants.

35) All the appeals are disposed of on the above terms.

.................................................J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

.................................................J.

(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 9, 2011.

28