The main legal point established is the importance of dignified behavior, obedience to professional ethics, and the sustenance of the decorum of the institution in the Bar and Bench relationship.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Conduct of Advocate - The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 15(2)
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a practicing Advocate, appeared for a complainant in a criminal case without filing Vakalatnama or application under section 301 of Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court sought explanation for the conduct and the respondent made contemptuous remarks. The trial Court adjourned the proceedings, and the complainant and respondent filed applications for early hearing and appearance, which were allowed. The complainant's application to transfer the case was rejected, and the case is still pending. The reference for contempt proceedings was received by the High Court, and the respondent tendered an unconditional apology.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the respondent's conduct was contemptuous but considered the unconditional apology and the respondent's remorse. The Court emphasized the importance of the Bar and Bench relationship and the need for sensitivity to the cause of justice. It acknowledged the role of emotions in reaching justice and highlighted the nobility of the legal profession.
Issues: The issues involved the respondent's conduct in appearing for the complainant without proper authorization, making contemptuous remarks, and the subsequent apology and remorse expressed by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for dignified behavior, obedience to professional ethics, and the sustenance of the decorum of the institution. It considered the repentance and regret expressed by the respondent and the importance of the Bar and Bench relationship in administering justice.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the Contempt Petition with directions for the respondent to refrain from contemptuous acts in the future, perform community service, and plant saplings. It emphasized the need to revive bonhomie between the Bar and Bench and strive to become 'Healers of Society' for the cause of Justice.

ORDER ANAND PATHAK, J. : – Reference under section 15(2) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 received by this Court being sent by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia in respect of the conduct of respondent.

2. From the contents of reference and the documents/record appended thereto, it appear that a Criminal Case No. 297/2016, State vs. Manoj Sahu and others was going on before the concerned trial Court in which accused were facing charge of offence under sections 452, 294, 323/34 and 506(part II) of Indian Penal Code. On 10-2-2021 case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Complainant as prosecution witness Harimohan Tiwari was present and being examined. Respondent-Pankaj Mishra who is a practicing Advocate at District and Sessions Court, apparently appeared for complainant, although at the time of appearance he did not file Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant nor any application under section 301 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed. It appears from the record/proceedings that prosecution witness Harimohan Tiwari went out from Courtroom for the time being during cross-examination which was taken note of by the trial Court and matter was kept after tea break.

3. After tea break when trial Court sought explanation of conduct of prosecution witness and asked the accused counsel for relevance of questions asked by him then counsel for the accused showed inclination to answer but sought moving of complainant counsel out of Courtroom so that his defence may not be disclosed to the witness. Trial Court referred section 165 of Evidence Act read with Rule 193 of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Court Rules and Orders and asked complainant and his counsel to move out from the Courtroom. After discussion with counsel for accused/defence, complainant and his counsel were called back. This step infuriated counsel for the complainant (respondent herein) and he made following remarks :

4. Thereafter, Court found conduct of respondent contemptuous and therefore, showed her intention to draw contempt proceedings against contemnor. Meanwhile prosecution witness submitted that he intends to get the case transferred to some other Court and refused to get himself cross-examined. At this juncture, Judge of the trial Court adjourned the proceedings so that complainant may have a chance to get the case transferred. Matter was placed on 23-2-2021.

5. It further appears from the proceedings dt. 13-2-2021, complainant Harimohan Tiwari along with contemnor filed an application for early hearing before the trial Court which was allowed and matter was taken for hearing by which contemnor Pankaj Mishra filed an application under section 301 of Criminal Procedure Code along with his Vakalatnama. Since no urgency was found by the trial Court, therefore, matter was placed on 23-2-2021. On next date i.e. 23-2-2021 trial Court allowed the application filed by the complainant under section 301 of Criminal Procedure Code and allowed contemnor to appear on behalf of complainant and to assist public prosecutor.

6. It further appears that complainant filed an application under section 410 of Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia and vide order dated 5-4-2021 said application has been rejected by the CJM, Datia. Meanwhile, on 23-2-2021 accused filed an application purportedly under section 317 of Criminal Procedure Code as he sought his attendance through his counsel. Complainant also sought time for cross-examination on some other date and matter was placed on 23-4-2021.

7. It further appears from the record that criminal case is still pending and trial is going on. Meanwhile instant reference has been received by this Court and vide order dated 28-6-2021 notice was issued to the respondent so that he can file response in the matter.

8. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent Pankaj Mishra on 13-9-2021 and without trying to explain the event from his perspective at the outset he tendered unconditional apology. It is his submission