2015 Supreme(All) 703
SUDHIR AGARWAL, DINESH GUPTA
IN RE : S. P. SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
BHAGWATI SHARMA – Respondent
Advocates:
Counsel :
A.G.A. and Sudhir Mehrotra (A.C.) for the Applicant; B.B.P. Srivastava, Dheeraj Srivastva and M.D. Mishra for the Contemnor.
Judgement Key Points
- The case involves criminal contempt proceedings against Bhagwati Sharma, an advocate, initiated via reference from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, for actions in Civil Court, Kushinagar. (!) [25000761220002]
- On 18.8.2008, during criminal case No. 713 of 2007, the contemnor called the court "incompetent" by uttering "COURT INCOMPETENT HAI". (!)
- In Criminal Misc. case No. 136 of 2008, the contemnor repeated arguments in a high-pitched tone, stating "MERI YAHI BAHAS IS PATRAVALI MAIN BHI HAI". [25000761220001]
- Notice issued on 7.1.2009; contemnor appeared on 17.12.2009, tendered apology, no formal charge framed. [25000761220003]
- Prior contempt petition No. 16 of 2006 against contemnor resulted in accepted apology and discharge. [25000761220004] (!)
- Contemnor held guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act for scandalizing the court and lowering its authority. (!) (!) (!) [25000761220005]
- Sentence deferred on 5.2.2010 to observe conduct for one year (till 4.2.2011); District Judge to monitor. [25000761220006] (!) (!) [25000761220007]
- During observation period, contemnor pressured judicial officers in Session Trial No. 66 of 2000 and led illegal strikes against judicial officers from November 2010. [25000761220008][25000761220010]
- Reports from Additional District Judge Piyush Verma (19.1.2011) and District Judge Ashok Kumar (18.12.2010) detailed contemnor's involvement in strikes, slogan shouting, and assault on witnesses. [25000761220008][25000761220009][25000761220010][25000761220011] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Separate Criminal Contempt No. 17 of 2011 registered for post-5.2.2010 acts, including illegal strikes and indecent behavior; clubbed with No. 20 of 2008. [25000761220012][25000761220013]
- Contemnor's defense denied specific allegations, justified strikes as resolutions against corruption, claimed discharge after one year, and alleged bias by judicial officers. (!) [25000761220016] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Court rejected limitation argument; one-year period was for observation, not reporting deadline; satisfaction of good conduct rests with court. [25000761220017][25000761220018][25000761220019]
- Contemnor failed to show orderly, good, and disciplined behavior due to repeated disruptive acts. [25000761220019][25000761220024]
- Advocates owe duties to court, society, and profession; cannot undermine judicial authority or lead illegal strikes. [25000761220020][25000761220021][25000761220022][25000761220023]
- No separate trial or punishment in No. 17 of 2011; same acts considered for sentencing in No. 20 of 2008. [25000761220025][25000761220026]
- Punishment imposed: simple imprisonment for six months, fine of Rs. 2000/- (with three months additional imprisonment on default), and restraint from practicing in District Judgeship premises for one year from 20.7.2015. [25000761220027][25000761220028]
- District Judge directed to monitor contemnor's conduct for two years post-debarment and report any issues. [25000761220029]
- Both applications disposed of. [25000761220030] (!)
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—A reference was made by Sri Surya Prakash Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna on 18.9.2008 forwarded by the then District Judge, Kushinagar vide letter dated 23.8.2008 informing this Court regarding activities of Sri Bhagwati Sharma, Advocate, in Civil Court, Kushinagar which constituted “Criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971(hereinafter referred to as “Act 1971”). The matter was examined by this Court and it was registered as Criminal Contempt Application No. 20 of 2008. In the Reference it is stated that on 18.8.2008 when Court was busy in criminal case No. 713 of 2007, Smt. Madhubala Pandey v. Abhishek Kumar, the Contemnor, appearing for the applicant in the said case dubbed the Court as ‘incompetent’. During course of argument, the contemnor uttered the words “COURT INCOMPETENT HAI”.
2. Likewise in another Criminal Misc. case No. 136 of 2008, Smt. Sobha Kushwaha v. Santosh Kushwaha, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the contemnor appearing for Smt. Sobha Kushwaha, without arguing the case on merits, stated in high pitch tone in open Court that he repeats the same arguments
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
