The Gujarat High Court has sentenced a lawyer to three months imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him for levelling scandalous and false charges against judges and judicial officers of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani recently passed the order on a batch of contempt applications initiated suo motu over the years (beginning from 2011) against the contemnor, an advocate practicing in the High Court as well as other courts in the state.
The High Court observed that despite ample opportunities offered to the contemnor during the proceedings, he did not tender any apology. Instead, the lawyer continued his contemptuous conduct by filing a criminal complaint against the Amicus Curiae, seeking prosecution of judges and publishing public notices in the newspapers naming the High Court judges and Chief Justice of this Court.
His acts unquestionably amounted to interference with the course of administration of justice. The lawyer not only lowered the dignity and majesty of this Court, but he also attempted to prejudice court proceedings, obstruct the officers of the Court, and abuse the process of the Court.
The Division Bench cited a Supreme Court ruling, which held that an offensive, intimidatory, or malicious attack on a judge must be met with a strong arm of law in the name of public interest and public justice to strike a blow on the person challenging the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.
The High Court rebuked the lawyer over his modus operandi of browbeating the presiding judges. It observed that the contemnor had a tendency to level scandalous allegations against a particular judge or judicial officers in the proceedings wherever he filed, whether before this Court or any other forum.
The High Court further took into consideration the fact that the contemnor had so far issued 52 notices, including public notices in newspapers, seeking initiation of both contempt and criminal proceedings against sitting Chief Justices and judges of this Court.
The lawyer sent a notice in 2010 to a former sitting High Court judge to answer it within 21 days, failing which suitable action would be taken in accordance with law, it added.
Besides addressing notices to a former Presiding Officer of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Registrar of the Gujarat High Court, along with judicial officers of trial courts, he also published a public notice in a newspaper in 2006 levelling allegations of corruption and illegal gratification against the Chief Justice.
After perusing the documents on record and the orders passed against the contemnor, the High Court observed that he had taken up a systematic campaign with ill-motive to demean and lower the majesty of this Court by making scandalous and libelous allegations against the judges, Chief Justice of this Court and the judicial officers.
Appointed as Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Asim Pandya argued that even during the pendency of contempt proceedings, the lawyer continued his scandalous attack against High Court judges and also leveled reckless allegations against Pandya, claiming that the Senior Advocate was not discharging his duties as Amicus independently.
Representing the contemnor, Advocate Kurven Desai (appointed from legal aid panel) submitted that since the proceedings have been ongoing for the last 15 years and considering the contemnor’s health, leniency may be shown to him. He further submitted that the contemnor’s acts did not directly interfere with the administration of justice.
The High Court said it gave the opportunity of hearing to the contemnor and even appointed an advocate to represent him as he had repeatedly chosen not to remain present despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants.
The contemnor was asked as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him
Noting that this was akin to a charge, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a fair procedure, the High Court held that the case involved blatant disregard of the rule of law. The dignity of those judges who were attacked and scandalised demanded the High Court to curb this ‘nuisance’ with an iron hand. This would uphold the majesty of the law and the administration of justice, while reposing the trust, faith, and confidence of the people.