Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in a writ petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and others, took suo motu cognizance of contemptuous conduct by the petitioners' counsel, Shri Mathews Nedumpara. During the hearing, Nedumpara alleged that judges of the Supreme Court are unfit to designate Senior Advocates as they only designate judges' relatives, and when questioned, he took the name of Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman without relevance. Despite being cautioned, he repeated the name and later denied having done so. He further made statements that lawyers are immune from contempt and defamation, and that Tihar Jail is not far, which the court held directly affect the administration of justice and constitute contempt in the face of the court. The court noted that this was not the first instance of such misconduct; Nedumpara had previously suppressed facts to obtain an order from the same bench, disrupted proceedings before the Bombay High Court, and was involved in an incident where a person posing as a judge called a bank official from his mobile number. The court found that Nedumpara's conduct was habitual and aimed at browbeating the court to obtain discretionary orders in hopeless cases. The court convicted him for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of one month. The court also directed that the writ petition be listed for hearing on merits before an appropriate bench.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Contempt in the Face of the Court - Sections 2(c), 12, 14, 15 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Advocate made baseless allegations that judges designate only relatives as Senior Advocates, took name of a senior advocate without relevance, and made statements that lawyers are immune from contempt and defamation, which directly affect administration of justice - Held that such conduct amounts to criminal contempt and contempt in the face of the court, warranting conviction and sentence (Paras 1-2, 5-6). B) Contempt of Court - Advocate Misconduct - Repeated Instances - Sections 2(c), 12, 14, 15 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Advocate had prior history of misconduct including suppression of facts to obtain orders, disruption of court proceedings, and alleged impersonation of a judge - Held that the advocate's conduct is habitual and unbecoming, justifying stern action (Paras 3-4, 6). C) Contempt of Court - Sentencing - Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Advocate convicted for criminal contempt and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with default sentence of one month - Held that the sentence is necessary to uphold the dignity and authority of the court (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the statements and conduct of the advocate, Shri Mathews Nedumpara, during the hearing of the writ petition constitute contempt of court and warrant punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court convicted Shri Mathews Nedumpara for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment. The court also directed that the writ petition be listed for hearing on merits before an appropriate bench.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Criminal Contempt
- Contempt in the Face of the Court
- Advocate Misconduct
- Independence of Judiciary
- Administration of Justice
