Systemic Interference With Judicial Process: Bombay HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Advocate Vijay Kurle

In a stinging rebuke to professional misconduct, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Vijay Kurle. Presided over by a Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, the Court lambasted the advocate for his persistent efforts to "browbeat" the judiciary and undermine the dignity of the administration of justice.

The Backdrop: A Pattern of Obstruction

The proceedings, which stemmed from a Family Court Appeal and a related Writ Petition, highlighted a disturbing pattern of behavior. The Court noted that multiple entities—including family members of a litigating husband—had been dragged into legal disputes, with Mr. Kurle spearheading arguments that the Bench described as a "systematic method to sabotage the Court proceedings."

The situation escalated when, during the hearing, Mr. Kurle alleged that the Court was “hand in glove with the respondents.” This, coupled with the submission of a "shocking" letter in which Mr. Kurle communicated with his clients in a manner intended to create a false record for recusal, prompted the Court to intervene firmly.

Arguments and Judicial Resistance

Throughout the hearing, the Court examined the role of an advocate as an "Officer of the Court." While Mr. Kurle sought to withdraw his appearance, the Bench—citing Rule 8(4) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules—rejected his plea, noting that the request was a strategic maneuver to avoid the bench, rather than a genuine request for discharge.

The Bench emphasized that advocates are not mere "mouthpieces" for their clients. Referencing the Code of Conduct framed under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court reminded Counsel that an advocate's primary duty is to the Court, not to facilitate the "sharp or unfair practices" of their clients.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling drew heavily on the gravity of the conduct demonstrated by the advocate. Expressing its stern disapproval, the Bench remarked:

• "The device of seeking recusal by the Judges on the count that a complaint is made against the Judges... and thereby seeking rehearing before a different Bench has the potential to severely impair the administration of justice."
• "No advocate can assume a position that he can overreach the process of law, and the authority law confers on the Court."
• "If such allegations... are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system."
• "We clearly see that a concerted attempt is made to systematically interfere and disturb the solemnity and purity in the process of law."

The Final Order: Accountability and Integrity

The Bombay High Court’s decision is multi-faceted, aiming to both address the contempt and ensure institutional discipline:

1. Criminal Contempt : The Registry has been ordered to issue a show-cause notice to Mr. Vijay Kurle, returnable on 29 April 2025.
2. Bar Council Inquiry : Endorsing the earlier observations made by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar in a separate matter, the Court has mandated that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa complete an enquiry into the misconduct of Mr. Kurle within ten weeks.
3. Removal from Board : To ensure the "sanctity and solemnity" of the case, the Court directed that the matter be removed from their board and placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.

This order serves as a stark warning to the legal fraternity: while an advocate is expected to represent their client zealously, that advocacy must remain within the bounds of professional ethics and respect for the rule of law. The Court’s "broad and strong shoulders" remain the final barrier against attempts to turn judicial proceedings into tools for harassment.