1. Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated due to objectionable pleadings imputing motives to the High Court in a petition. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1845
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Municipal Council Tikamgarh – Appellant
Versus
Matsya Udyog Sahkari Samiti & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 18820 of 2022 (Arising Out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-08-2022 in WA No. 844 of 2022 passed by the High Court of M.P Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Advocates Appeared:
By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. S. Janani, Advocate, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Mrigank K Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Mrigank K Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocate, for the Appellant.
By Courts Motion, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. S. Janani, Advocate, Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Goel, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Mrigank K Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Mrigank K Prabhakar, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of an unconditional apology in a contempt case and the responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record in verifying the complete petition before filing.
Headnote:
Contempt - Apology - Responsibility of Advocate-on-Record - Additional Affidavit - [Contempt] - [Advocate-on-Record] - [Not specified] - The court perused the affidavit in reply to the suo moto contempt petition and found that the contemnor had submitted an unconditional apology. The court cautioned the Advocate-on-Record to be careful in the future and allowed the filing of an additional affidavit.
Fact of the Case:
The court perused the affidavit in reply to the suo moto contempt petition filed by Mr. Vijay Singh, Assistant Accountant through his counsel. The contemnor submitted an unconditional apology arising from the portions found offensive by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contemnor had apologized and that an appropriate application would be filed seeking deletions of the objectionable paragraphs. The court also cautioned the Advocate-on-Record to be careful in the future and allowed the filing of an additional affidavit.
Issues: The issues involved the submission of an unconditional apology by the contemnor and the responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record in verifying the complete petition before filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the submission of an unconditional apology and the responsibility of the Advocate-on-Record in verifying the complete petition before filing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the filing of an additional affidavit and listed the case for the reopening week in the month of January, 2023.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Deponent cites limited English proficiency and reliance on counsel; Advocate-on-Record claims the filing of offensive content was inadvertent. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. The court observed that an Advocate-on-Record bears a significant responsibility to verify the entire petition before signing and filing. (Para 3 )
4. An Advocate-on-Record is professionally obligated to read and verify the complete petition before signing to ensure its propriety. (Para 3 )
5. Parties directed to file applications for deletion of offensive paragraphs and additional affidavits; Advocate-on-Record cautioned for future conduct. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. What is the professional responsibility of an Advocate-on-Record regarding the contents of a petition they sign?
An Advocate-on-Record has a bounden duty to verify the complete petition before signing and filing it, and cannot simply claim inadvertence for the inclusion of objectionable content. (Para 3 )
7. How does the court treat apologies and requests for deletion of offensive pleadings in contempt proceedings?
The court permits the filing of applications to delete objectionable paragraphs and accepts apologies, though it may still caution the legal practitioners involved regarding their professional duties. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
ORDER
1. We have perused the affidavit in reply to the suo moto contempt petition filed by Mr. Vijay Singh, Assistant Accountant through Mr. Mrigank Prabhar, learned counsel, who has deposed in support of the petition. It is stated by him that his knowledge and exposure to the English language is limited considering the background from where he comes. He further averred in para 8 that insofar as pleadings relating to the imputation of motives on the High Court were concerned, though the contemnor cannot plead ignorance, he was briefed by the office of Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate seeking to inform him that this was based on some judgment of this Court and he was not in a position to question the same.
2. Learned counsel appearing for him further states that an appropriate application will be filed seeking deletions of the objectionable paragraphs. He has submitted an unconditional apology arising from the portions found offensive by this Court which has given rise to the suo moto contempt petition. Let him file an appropriate application.
3. An affidavit has also been filed by Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR. While apologizing he submits that it happened inadvertently. We find it little difficult to accept the reason as there is responsibility on Advocate-on-Record before penning down his signatures. Mr. M.L. Sharma has drawn the petition and it was his bounden duty to have verified the complete petition before performing the task of what has been filed under his signatures. This is not only a learning experience for him but for other AORs who may tend to pen down signatures without reading what they are filing.
4. We thus caution him to be careful in future looking to the responsibility of an AOR.
5. He may file an appropriate application as the deponent in support of the petition seeks to make.
6. Mr. M.L. Sharma, prays for need to file additional affidavit and he may do the needful within a week.
7. List in the reopening week in the month of January, 2023.
