The judgment establishes the principle that lawyers have a duty to respect the dignity and authority of the court, and their conduct should not interfere with the administration of justice.

IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. –

The contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the reference made by Sri Om Prakash Dixit, Special Judge, Etawah vide letter dated 19.1.2007 which was duly forwarded by District Judge vide letter dated 20.1.2007 whereby reference has been made to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding against the contemnor namely Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Advocate Civil Court, Etawah.

2. According to the facts contained in reference made to this Court, on 12.1.2007 at 10.35 a.m. when the Court was busy recording the statement in a final enquiry No. 6-F/2006 State v. Rakesh Kumar Saxena, the contemnor advocate interrupted the proceeding and insisted with the officer to send for the file and his case be got called out forthwith. When the officer asked him to wait for the proceeding to end, upon which he became furious and in terrorem, remarked which if translated into English would read that perhaps the officer was not aware as to what would happen if the request of the contemnor was not immediately attended to. It is further mentioned in the reference that again the contemnor came to the Court at 11.20 a.m. and perused the order-sheet of Special Case No. 693 of 2004 and burst out angrily using words couched in derogatory and undignified language which if translated in English would agreeably read that the contenmor had set right even the most intractable Judges and the officer stands no where qua them. It is further mentioned that the contemnor again came to the Court at 12.30 p.m. and moved an application whereupon the Court passed the order thereon. When the contemnor read the contents of the order, he again became furious and remarked which if translated in English would agreeably read that he would make such a strong complaint that the officer would remember for all time to come. In the reference, previous incidents of unruly conduct of the contemnor in the Court of the then Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Etawah presided over by Sri Rajiv Kumar, contained in letter dated 14.11.2003, in the Court of the then Civil Judge (S.D.) presided over by Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta contained in letter dated 5.4.2005, in the Court of then Addl. District Judge, presided over by Sri S.P. Singh and also the notice issued to him on 18.8.2006 under section 228 I.P.C., in the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act) presided over by Sri O.P. Dixit vide letter dated 12.1.2007, in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J-D.) presided over by Sri Mohd. Rafi vide letter dated 16.2.2007, Vigilance Bureau enquiry No. 28 of 2002 in which notice was I issued by the High Court dated 22.3.2003 and 22.5.2003 and the letter dated 20.1.2008 written by contemnor to the High Court in which he has prayed for not initiating any action on the complaints against him.

3. On 30.4.2007, upon a note of the office the Administrative Judge, Etawah passed the following orders.

“I have seen the report/complaint of the Special Judge (E.C. Act) Etawah, note of the office and other documents on record. It appears that the Special Judge (E.C. Act), Etawah was recording the statement of a witness in a case when Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate entered the Court room and interfered with the judicial proceedings. I have carefully gone through the record and, in my opinion, the alleged actions of Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate, can be defined as ‘contempt of Court’ within the meaning of section 2 (C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against him under the said Act.

Let appropriate proceedings be initiated against Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate for his alleged acts under the Contempt of Courts Act.”

Thereafter, the matter came to be put up before Hon'ble Chief Justice and on 25.5.2009 the Chief Justice approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge.

4. Sri S.S. Upadhaya, learned Counsel appeared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the case on