IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of court by Advocate – Apology must evidence remorse with respect to contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge guilty of their offence.

ORDER

1. The Criminal Appeal No. 577/2007 arises out of the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi (“High Court”) dated 19.10.2006 in Criminal Contempt Case Nos. 16 of 2006 and 17 of 2006.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court exercising its suo motu contempt jurisdiction, convicted the sole appellant herein, a practising advocate and a former army personnel, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“Act”) and sentenced him to civil imprisonment of three months which was to run concurrently and a fine of Rs. 2,000, each in both the contempt cases.

3. Facts in the lead matter: On 17.08.2006, in a writ petition before the High Court, the appellant, appearing as counsel, sought an adjournment. After granting an adjournment, the Court noticed the appellant’s conduct relating to giving threats to the lady counsel who was appearing for the other side. Thereafter, the High Court passed an order directing him to explain his conduct. The order is reproduced herein for ready reference:-

“Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes to file some applications and requests for adjournment. Request is allowed.

At this stage, after the request for filing the applications was allowed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while going back passed a comment on the lady Advocate opposing him in the case and appearing for the respondents. She brought it to the notice of the Court and we requested the Counsel appearing for the petitioner to come back, which he did.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a threatening remark to her, saying that now she be prepared for the consequences. Shri Dipak Bhattacharya (Advocate), who was also present in the Court duly confirmed that he overheard this remark being made to the lady Advocate appearing for the respondents. We find this attitude of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner to be undesirable and needs to be deprecated and dealt with in accordance with law. It is unfair for any Counsel to give any threats to the Counsel appearing on the other side, as all of them appear as officers of the Court and assist the Court or their respective clients. However, before we direct any further action or issue notice for contempt, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a request and the case is directed to be listed for tomorrow.

List on 18.8.2006.”

4. On 18.08.2006, when the matter was called out, the appellant failed to appear. Therefore, the Bench adjourned the matter to 21.08.2006. In fact, a counsel standing in the courtroom at that time undertook to personally inform the appellant about the next date of hearing. Surprisingly, the appellant had filed an application seeking transfer of the said writ petition to a different bench of the High Court, even though he failed to physically appear in the matter. Later in the day, a counsel appearing on behalf the appellant made a request for an adjournment on the ground that the appellant was unwell. That said, the standing counsel for the Union of India, who was also present in the same court at that time, informed the Bench that the appellant was seen in the court premises earlier in the day. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the Bench adjourned the matter to 21.08.2006.

5. Thereafter, even on 21.08.2006, the appellant failed to appear. However, he had filed applications in the same matter making reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges of the High Court. Clearly, by failing to appear and filing baseless allegations, the appellant had disobeyed the orders of the Court. In fact, it also came to the knowledge of the High Court that the appellant herein has frequently filed transfer applications on behalf of his clients, without their knowledge. Therefore, by its order dated 21.08.2006, a Division Bench of the High Court issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why proceedings under the Act should not be initiated against him (Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 16 of 2006).

6. Around the