The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to procedural rules in contempt proceedings, particularly regarding the requirement for clear allegations and the proper initiation of actions under the Contempt of Courts Act.

ORDER :

1. This Contempt Case is registered suo motu, under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [for brevity ‘the Act’] read with Rule 7(i) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971 [for brevity ‘the Rules’]. The letter dated 09.02.2023 written by Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph, to the Honourable the Chief Justice is regarding an incident that happened on 09.02.2023 in Court No. 2D, about the conduct of the respondent-Advocate Yashwant Shenoy in Court. When that letter was placed before the then Chief Justice on the administrative side, along with a ‘note’ of the Registrar General, the Chief Justice considered it expedient to place the matter before the Division Bench dealing with contempt matters. Accordingly, the Registrar General prepared the synopsis, statement of facts and a draft memo of charges, supported by an affidavit dated 27.02.2023. That petition was numbered as Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 2 of 2023 and listed before the Division Bench dealing with contempt matters, on 28.02.2023.

2. On 28.02.2023, the Division Bench issued notice to the respondent. By the order dated 28.02.2023, the Division Bench appointed under Rule 15 of the Rules Sr. Adv. V.P. Seemanthini as the counsel to assist the Court to conduct the proceedings against the respondent.

3. On 03.04.2023, the respondent entered appearance and sought two weeks’ time to file objections. Sr. Adv. V.P. Seemanthini expressed her unwillingness to continue for the reason that she is a Senior Counsel in the panel of Lawyers for the High Court. Before the Division Bench Sr. Adv. S. Sreekumar agreed to assist the Court, under Rule 15 of the Rules, in the place of Sr. Adv. V.P. Seemanthini. By the order dated 03.04.2023, the Division Bench directed the Registry to show the name of Sr. Adv. S. Sreekumar in the cause list, in the place of Sr. Adv. V.P. Seemanthini.

4. On 22.05.2023, the respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was pointed out that he is in the process of filing a separate application for discharge. On 25.05.2023, the respondent appeared online and a counsel representing the respondent handed over to the Division Bench a physical copy of the application filed for recusal of Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas, one of the members of the Division Bench, from hearing the matter. Such an application was filed on 07.06.2023, which was numbered as I.A. No. 2 of 2023, in which that Division Bench passed a detailed order on 30.06.2023, whereby that application stands rejected for the reasons stated therein.

5. Thereafter, the respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 25.09.2023, producing therewith Annexure R1(1) to R1(42) documents. One of the contentions raised in that counter affidavit is that the respondent has not been furnished with a copy of the letter dated 09.02.2023 of Justice Mary Joseph, referred to in the statement of facts of this contempt case. In the order dated 11.10.2023, this Court noticed that the said letter is not seen incorporated in the Judges papers of this contempt case. In such circumstances, the Registry was directed to incorporate that letter along with connected records in the Judges papers of this contempt case and to furnish copy of the same to the respondent and to the learned Senior Counsel appointed under Rule 15 of the Rules.

6. After the receipt of those documents, the respondent filed an additional affidavit dated 01.01.2024, producing therewith Annexure R1(45) letter dated 09.02.2023 of Justice Mary Joseph and Annexure R1(46) ‘note’ of the Registrar General, which was placed before the then Chief Justice, on administrative side, which contains an endorsement dated 21.02.2023 of the then Chief Justice.

7. We heard detailed arguments of the respondent, who appeared in person and Sr. Adv. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appointed under Rule 15 of the Rules, for conducting the proceedings against the respondent. The respondent has submitted argument notes on the procedural violations pointed ou