Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rakesh Tiwari, an advocate, was convicted for criminal contempt by the High Court for his conduct on 21st December 2012 when he entered the chamber of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, along with 2-3 colleagues, hurled filthy abuses, raised his hand to beat the CJM, and threatened him with dire consequences. The High Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/-, with a further direction not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for six months and to remain under constant watch of the District Judge for two years. The appellant contended that he had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and alleged that the CJM was biased in favor of the accused, but the High Court found his defense baseless. The Supreme Court, in appeal, upheld the conviction, emphasizing that an advocate, as an officer of the court, must maintain high standards of conduct and cannot threaten or abuse a judge for a judicial order. The Court referred to precedents such as Mr. 'G', A Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court (AIR 1954 SC 557) and Lalit Mohan Das v. Advocate General, Orissa (AIR 1957 SC 250) to highlight the duty of advocates. The Court also discussed the power to debar an advocate from appearing in court, citing Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 and Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali (2001) 8 SCC 650. The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order by deleting the direction that the contemnor shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for six months and shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge for two years, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Section 2(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Advocate entering chamber of Chief Judicial Magistrate, hurling abuses, and threatening him - Such conduct lowers the authority of the court and scandalises it, constituting criminal contempt - Held that the act of the advocate is improper and requires gross condemnation (Paras 1-8). B) Professional Ethics - Duty of Advocate - Advocate as officer of the court - An advocate must conduct himself in a manner befitting the high and honourable profession, uphold dignity and decorum of the court, and not bring the court into disrepute - Scandalising the court pollutes the fount of justice (Paras 7-10). C) Sentencing - Contempt of Court - Sentence of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- imposed by High Court - Supreme Court upheld the sentence but modified the direction debarring the advocate from entering the district judgeship for six months and constant watch for two years - Held that the High Court's order is modified to the extent that the advocate shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months and shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge for two years (Paras 1, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant advocate's conduct of entering the chamber of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, hurling abuses, and threatening him constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and what is the appropriate sentence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for criminal contempt. However, it modified the High Court's order by deleting the direction that the contemnor shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months and shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge for two years. The rest of the sentence, including six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, was upheld.
Law Points
- Criminal contempt
- scandalising the court
- interference with administration of justice
- professional misconduct of advocate
- duty of advocate as officer of the court
- sentencing for contempt
- power to debar advocate from appearing
