SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 994

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
K. A. Mohammed Ali, Appellant
Versus
C.N. Prasannan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 678 of 1991 with 140 of 1992
Decided on 4-10-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. E. M. S. Anam, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. G. Vishwanathan Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Mr. M. K.D. Namboodri and Mr. R. Sasiprabhu, Advocates with him, for Respondent.

Advocates:
E.M.S.ANAM, G.VISHVANATHA IYER, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, R.SASIPRABHU, S.BALAKRISHNAN

Lawyers are created for the courts, and the court has plenary powers under the Constitution to admonish for misconduct.

Headnote:

Contempt of Court - Lawyer's Misbehavior - The court found the lawyer guilty of contempt for raising his voice and using derogatory language against the magistrate during a trial. The court emphasized that lawyers are created for the courts, not the other way around, and admonished the lawyer for his conduct.

Fact of the Case:

The lawyer was convicted under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for raising his voice and using derogatory language against the magistrate during a trial. He also got published and circulated certain posters and caused a demonstration staged, leading to action taken against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the lawyer's behavior to be unruly and defiant, emphasizing that lawyers are created for the courts, not the other way around. The court refused to accept the lawyer's apology and admonished him for his conduct.

Issues: Conviction under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, lawyer's unruly behavior, and refusal to accept apology.

Ratio Decidendi: Lawyers are created for the courts, and when an aberration occurs, the happy combination should be restored immediately. The court has plenary powers under the Constitution to admonish for misconduct.

Final Decision: The court set aside the payment of fine but upheld the orders for the appellant to pay sums to the Kerala Legal Aid Board.

JUDGMENT

 These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed the contempt of the court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was conducting a trial for an accused person. Amongst others, one of the charges against the appellant was that he had at a certain juncture raised the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the learned Magistrate, and besides, had used derogatory language against him. After the incident, the appellant got published and circulated certain posters and caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court whereupon action was taken against the appellant.

2. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court and have heard learned counsel. We have no reason to disbelieve the learned Magistrate on the actual happenings, even though effort has been made by Mr.Anam, learned counsel for the appellant to question the same. We are of the view that when the appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour, he should have stopped and gone in tune with the learned Magistrate and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. It should be borne in mind by one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the lawyers. The happy combination, whenever an aberration occurs, should in immediacy be restored and put to an even knee. Mr. Anam with all his sincerity has expressed before us that the appellants in apologetic for his misbehaviour. We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at this belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct under our plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby. Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant need not pay the imposed fine of Rs.2000/- in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1991. However, the sums of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- which have been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board under orders under challenge in the respective two appeals are meant for a good cause and those orders we do not upset. This course should set everything at rest. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 454

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top