Can’t ‘recklessly’ accuse judges: Contempt proceedings dropped against lawyers, litigant

“There can be no dispute that pleadings filed before a Court of law must be drafted with utmost care, restraint and responsibility. Any allegation made against a Presiding Officer touching upon his or her conduct, impartiality or functioning has serious consequences and cannot be made lightly or recklessly,” the bench said on July 2.

Members of the Bar and litigants are expected to uphold the dignity of judicial proceedings and “refrain from making scandalous or unwarranted allegations” against the court, the bench added.

The high court accepted the respondents’ unconditional apologies after noting that they had expressed genuine regret, apologised before both the high court and the trial court, and complied with every direction issued during the proceedings. However, it clarified that any similar conduct in future could invite fresh contempt action.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal clarified that any similar conduct from the lawyers in future could invite fresh contempt action.

Transfer plea sparks contempt reference

The proceedings stemmed from a civil suit filed in 2023 before the court of the senior civil judge in Bagbahara. During its pendency, defendant number 1, Anil Singh, moved an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking transfer of the case. The application contained allegations against the presiding officer hearing the matter.

Taking the view that the allegations were contemptuous in nature, the senior civil judge made a reference to the high court seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.

On April 9, the high court took cognisance of the reference and issued notices to advocates Firoj Khan, Shamshad Khan and Yasmin Khan, along with litigant Anil Singh. They were directed to remain personally present before the court and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

When the matter came up on May 6, all four respondents appeared before the bench and filed replies tendering unconditional apologies.

While observing that filing a transfer application containing such allegations prima facie appeared contemptuous, the high court refrained from taking immediate punitive action. Instead, it directed the respondents to tender unconditional apologies before the concerned presiding officer and decided to watch their future conduct before passing final orders.

Respondents express regret

At the final hearing, counsel appearing for the three advocates submitted that they had complete faith in and respect for the judiciary. They claimed to have no intention to scandalise the court or lower its authority and that any objectionable averment in the transfer application was wholly inadvertent, unintentional and not wilful.

The advocates expressed regret and prayed that the mistake be condoned in the interest of justice. The litigant, Anil Singh, also filed a separate reply tendering an unconditional apology, stating that the averments in the transfer application were never intended to cast aspersions on the judge or scandalise the court. He requested that any improper pleadings be condoned.

Court accepts apology with warning

• The high court noted that the respondents had complied with its earlier order by tendering unconditional apologies before the trial court as well.
• They also remained personally present before the bench and expressed regret over the contents of the transfer application.
• The bench also directed that the replies, apology applications and additional documents filed by the respondents be taken on record.

Contempt proceedings closed

Considering the explanations furnished by the respondents, their unconditional apologies, conduct and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bench held that the interests of justice would be served by accepting their apologies and closing the contempt proceedings.

However, the court made it clear that its decision should not be construed as condoning such conduct. It expressed hope that the respondents would remain cautious in future and warned that if any similar act is repeated, the concerned court would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

The high court directed that copies of its judgment be forwarded to the principal district and sessions judge, Mahasamund, and the judge of the trial court for necessary information.