Explore the case where the integrity of court proceedings was challenged, highlighting the clash between legal professionals and the purity of judicial processes. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Legal Professional vs. Purity of Court Proceedings sets a precedent for the ethical conduct expected from advocates, emphasizing respect for the judiciary. Delve into the details of this crucial judgement to grasp the significance of upholding the dignity of court proceedings.
Facts
- The contemnor, advocate Rakesh Tripathi, was convicted by the High Court for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.
- He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000.
- In case of non-payment of the fine, he would undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.
- He was also banned from entering the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for six months and was put under the constant watch of the District Judge for two years.
- The criminal contempt charge stemmed from an incident on 21 December 2012, where the contemnor hurled abuses at the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and threatened him.
- The contemnor claimed that he had filed an application on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and objected to the CJM’s handling of the case.
- Advocates were on strike on the said date.
- Contemnor along with 2-3 junior advocates entered the chamber of the CJM and misbehaved as well as attempted to assault him.
- Contemnor got the earlier case dismissed as not pressed and filed a second application.
- Magistrate did not reject the application outright and required the complainant to adduce evidence.
- CJM registered a complaint case again.
- Contemnor did not enter the chamber of the CJM on 21.12.2012, neither abused nor threatened him to beat.
- No application was filed by contemnor on 8.11.2012 before the CJM not to pass any order.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in POTA Case: A-10 (Parvez Khan Pathan)
Arguments
- Lawyer plays a vital role in the justice delivery system and has to assist the court while defending the interests of the client.
- It is unacceptable for a lawyer to engage in undignified conduct that lowers the dignity of the court.
- The advocate’s role is vital for the preservation of society and the justice delivery system.
- The defense taken by the advocate in this case has not been supported with evidence.
- A lawyer, being part of the intellectual class, is held to higher expectations in society.
- Increasing instances of lawyers making scurrilous allegations against Presiding Officers of subordinate courts must be curbed.
- Abusive and misbehaving actions by advocates are on the rise and must be addressed.
- Scandalising a judicial officer of a subordinate court undermines confidence in the legal system and must be dealt with firmly.
- Such actions damage not only the reputation of the Judge but also the fair name of the judiciary as a whole.
- Judges cannot be influenced or intimidated by such tactics as it undermines the foundation of the justice system based on independence and impartiality.
- An advocate is duty-bound to uphold the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court.
- Allegations of bias by the Magistrate towards the accused have been found baseless and should be addressed promptly.
- Attacks on judicial officers by members of the legal profession have no place and must be discouraged.
- Advocates are expected to show respect to their opponents and maintain professional ethics and standards.
- Threatening a Judge or hurling abuses for a judicial order is unacceptable behavior for an advocate.
Also Read: TAFRC Fee Determination Case: Upholding Expert Authority
Analysis
- The appellant’s conduct was highly reprehensible and disrespectful towards the court.
- The act amounts to criminal contempt of court and a non-bailable warrant has been issued.
- The appellant made improper imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court.
- The dignity of the court system is upheld by the conduct of advocates who are officers of the court.
- The High Court has authority to regulate the conduct of advocates within its domain and pending resolution, the advocate cannot act in any court under Kerala High Court.
- Disobedience of a court order is not a bar to being heard, but if it impedes justice, the court may refuse to hear the party
- Legal practitioners must conduct themselves in a dignified manner as it affects the administration of justice
- Scandalising the court pollutes the justice system and brings disrepute to the entire administration of justice
- A direction disallowing convicted advocates from appearing in court may be necessary for court protection and to maintain orderly proceedings
- Advocates must uphold the dignity of the court and not bring it into disrepute
- The court has the power to withdraw privileges of practicing advocates for misconduct or contempt of court
- Preventing an advocate from appearing in court for contempt is different from suspending their license to practice law
- Examples of advocate misconduct that may threaten court proceedings and constitute contempt of court and professional misconduct
- Courts have the right and obligation to protect themselves from threats to the purity of their proceedings
- A direction preventing an advocate from appearing in court is not punishment for professional misconduct
- Malefactor’s conduct may pose a real threat to the purity of court proceedings and may constitute contempt of court and professional misconduct
- Legal professionals are subject to special and rigid rules of professional conduct
- They belong to a privileged class with certain disabilities attached to their status
- These disabilities do not apply to other individuals or to the legal professionals in a non-professional capacity
- The accused, SI, has denied the allegations and shown no remorse for his misconduct
- The High Court has imposed a 6-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000 on the accused
- In default of paying the fine, the accused will undergo 15 days of imprisonment
Also Read: Urs Family Property Dispute: Supreme Court Decree
Decision
- The period of the sentence is from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2022.
- Imprisonment may be activated in case of breach of any condition by the advocate during the three-year period.
- If fine is not deposited, entry into District Judgeship is prohibited for three months.
- No costs involved in the appeal disposal.
- Advocate restrained from entering Allahabad judgeship for 6 months starting from 15.7.2015 and under watch for 2 years.
- A fine of Rs.2000 imposed by the High Court to be deposited.
- If conditions are not violated, the sentence after three years will be remitted.
- Conviction for criminal contempt upheld with modification in sentence.
- Imprisonment of 6 months suspended for an additional 3 years conditional on good conduct, with a prohibition on entering District Judgeship, Allahabad for a total of 6 years.
Case Title: RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE Vs. ALOK PANDEY, CJM
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001223-001223 / 2015
