The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held two advocates guilty of criminal contempt for threatening a judicial officer in open court and attempting to pressurize him during proceedings, imposing a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000, and referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action.

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode was hearing a criminal contempt reference filed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Sajiduzzaman Shahid against advocates Sagar Durgadas Rathod and his father Durgadas D. Rathod. The reference arose from an incident on November 26, 2021, during proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 213/2019 pending before the judicial officer at Arni, Yavatmal.

According to the reference, Sagar Rathod was representing an accused against whom a non-bailable warrant had been issued after he remained absent despite service of a bailable warrant. When the judicial officer declined to cancel the warrant in the absence of the accused, Sagar Rathod allegedly began shouting in the court hall, stating in Marathi that the court was harassing them and that they would take action against the judge. He further said that they would complain and take the bar resolution to initiate proceedings against the court.

Shortly thereafter, Durgadas Rathod, who was then President of the Arni Taluka Bar Association, entered the court hall and raised his finger at the judicial officer, threatening that if anything was taken on record and action was taken, they would not leave him and would produce proof of corruption to senior officers.

The judicial officer recorded the incident in the order and issued show cause notices to both advocates. When they failed to file satisfactory replies, he forwarded the reference to the High Court.

The High Court noted that the conduct of both advocates amounted to serious interference with the administration of justice. " Interference in the administration of justice by giving threats, addressing the judicial officer in loud voice and prohibiting him from passing orders are definitely serious acts. More so, when such acts have been done by an advocate who is the officer of the Court, he should promote and see that all others who are present should also maintain the decorum of the Court ," the court observed.

The respondents initially failed to appear before the High Court despite service of notice, prompting the court to issue bailable warrants. They eventually appeared and filed replies denying the allegations, claiming the incident arose from misunderstandings during submissions. They tendered unconditional apologies, but the court found these lacking in sincerity.

The court noted that the apologies were not offered at the earliest opportunity and were only made after the court had directed them to do so. Referring to the Supreme Court 's observations in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot , the bench stated that an apology lacking remorse or offered merely to escape punishment can be termed a " paper apology ." The court held: "giving threats in the open Court to the Judicial Officer needs to be viewed very seriously. If the apology which is tendered is not genuine one or bonafide, it is not necessary for the Court to accept the same."

The bench emphasized that using threatening and abusive language against a judge during judicial proceedings, especially by a person holding the post of President of the Bar Association, cannot be viewed as a bona fide mistake.

The court found both advocates guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, considering that they are practising lawyers and had subsequently tendered apologies, the court decided to impose a fine rather than imprisonment. Under Section 12 of the Act, a sentence of fine is the rule and imprisonment the exception.

The court directed both respondents to pay a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 each, to be deposited in the Public Welfare Account of the Union Bank of India, High Court branch, Nagpur. Additionally, the proceedings were referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for initiating appropriate action against both advocates.

The court underscored the importance of advocates conducting themselves with dignity and respect towards the judiciary. "An Advocate should always show respect towards the Court. An Advocate has to bear in mind that the dignity and respect maintained towards Judicial Officer is essential for the survival of a free community," the bench stated.

With these directions, the reference was disposed of.