IMPORTANT POINTS
Members of Bar are required to maintain dignified behavior, obedience to the norms of professional ethics and sustenance of decorum of the institution.
If the contemnor tenders sincere unconditional apology and undertakes not to indulge in similar activities, he may be exonerated and the contempt proceedings closed.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal, by special leave, assails the order dated 27.4.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRMP (Contempt of Court) No. 10077 of 2016 whereby it has, after referring to assertions made in the petition and reproducing certain paragraphs from C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457, directed as follows:-

"9. Let there be a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act returnable on 2.5.2016 to respondents. In the mean time and till the returnable date, the respondents are restrained from indulging in any scandalous activity or holding official meeting and passing resolution on the subject matter as it is expressly prohibited and could be said to be contemptuous as per decision of Supreme Court in case of C. Ravichandran Iyer ( supra)."

3. When the matter was listed on 29.4.2016, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, as the respondent no.1, who had initiated the contempt of court, had entered caveat, passed the following order:-

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are, as advised at present, not inclined to vary or modify the order passed by the High Court and, accordingly, we direct that the said order shall remain in force till 12.05.2016. However, we direct that the contempt proceedings before the High Court shall remain in abeyance till 12.05.2016."

4. To appreciate the controversy, narration of facts, in brief, is necessary. As has been stated hereinbefore, the High Court entertained the application for contempt of court being moved by the 1st respondent, a member of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, the 3rd respondent herein. The assertions that were made in the contempt petition basically pertain to unwarranted speeches rendered, letters written or the statements given by the appellant. The High Court, prima facie, formed the view that the language employed in the letter did tantamount to contempt. Be it stated, on the date the High Court took up the matter, the Bar Association was going to discuss and pass a resolution which, the High Court felt, was contemptuous in nature. Regard being had to the facts enumerated in the petition and the submissions put forth on behalf of the 1st respondent, who was the petitioner before the High Court, it issued notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, "the Act") to the respondent/contemnor therein and directed him not to indulge in any kind of scandalous activity or holding official meeting and passing resolution on the subject matter as could be said to be contemptuous as per the verdict of this Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer (supra).

5. Be it noted, after the interim order was passed by this Court, the matter was adjourned on certain occasions and on the last occasion, Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent had drawn our attention to certain letters written by the appellant. At that stage, this Court noted that it may, in the ultimate eventuality, issue notice to the Bar Council of India.

6. With the passage of time, as is reflectible, monumental wisdom has dawned on the appellant and he has filed an affidavit on 25.08.2016. In various paragraphs of the said affidavit, as is manifest, he has unequivocally expressed his regret and rendered unconditional apology. He has explicitly and unambiguously stated that on certain occasions, he might have spoken with emotion but his respect and regard for the institution is extremely high. It is also admitted by him that he was under the impression that he was making a genuine effort to protect the interest of the institution.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Sibal and Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that when the appellant , a senior counsel practising in the High Court of Gujarat, has realized the mistake and tendered unconditional apology, the controversy should be given a decent burial. Mr. Raval, learned senior cou