Advocates have a duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and maintain professional standards, and inappropriate behavior may lead to contempt of court.

1. An order had been passed, by this Court, on 16.4.2012, directing the Registry to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari, for having committed contempt of Court, on 16.4.2012, by serving an appropriate notice on him.

2. On receipt of the notice, dated 23.4.2012, issued by the Registry of this Court, Mr.V.Raghavachari, the contemner, had appeared before this Court, today. Ms.Vaigai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.V.Raghavachari, had submitted that the contemner had never intended to lower the dignity, decorum or the majesty of this Court, in any manner. Whatever he had said or done was only in the interest of his clients, due to the urgency involved in the matter listed before this Court. He had not intended to lower the authority of law or the majesty of this Court, or to cause obstruction to the Court proceedings. It is only an unfortunate incident that had taken place, on 16.4.2012, when the writ petition, in W.P.No.5866 of 2012, was being heard by this Court.

3. The learned counsel had further submitted that, even though it is a regrettable incident, this Court may be pleased to close the matter, without any further action being taken against the contemner, considering the amicable and healthy relationship existing between the Bar and the Bench, and in the interest of the contemner, who is a practising advocate of this Court, and in the larger interests of the judiciary, as an institution. She had further submitted that there is no doubt that the highly valued traditions and conventions of this highly reputed institution should be respected, maintained and followed by the members of the bar, and that such unsavoury incidents should not take place, in future.

4. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Santhana Gopalan, had submitted, on behalf of the members of the bar, that the incident that had happened, on 16.4.2012, is highly regrettable in nature and that the members of the bar should act in a responsible manner, keeping in mind the long cherished values and the traditions of this Court, in order to maintain its great reputation, dignity and honour. He had submitted that the incident may be condoned, by this Court, without taking serious note of it. Conveying the sentiments of the bar, he had further expressed the hope that such incidents would not occur, in future. However, it is not clear as to whether the friendly advice, said to have been tendered by some of the senior members of the bar, had any sobering effect on the contemner, as seen from the reluctance shown by him in tendering an unconditional apology, for the unfortunate incident that had unfolded before this Court, on 16.4.2012, while hearing the writ petition, in W.P.No. 5866 of 2012. Instead, he was inclined to justify his behaviour, by finding unacceptable reasons for the same. His attempt to raise the issue relating to certain procedural irregularities in the contempt notice issued to him, and his attempt in trying to explain the reasons for his behaviour, does not go down well with this Court. May be, if an unconditional apology had been tendered, matters would have been laid to rest, without any further comments being made, as the frayed feelings of this Court, with regard to the behaviour of the contemner, would have been substantially smoothened. In such circumstances this Court finds it appropriate to record that, during the course of the proceedings, on 16.4.2012, it had been pointed out that such inappropriate representations made by counsels would only be counter productive to the cause of the litigants, whom they represent. Polite persuasion, which is permissible during the submission of arguments, cannot be equated with a show of unwanted aggression, as it is clear that such inappropriate behaviour would not serve the cause of justice, or the interests of the litigants.

5. The counsels, who are representing the parties before the Courts of law, ought not to cross the `Lakshman Rekha' of pr