Back
Accepts Advocate's Apology for Threatening Judge, Imposes Fine and Tree-Planting Duty
In an unusual blend of leniency and social responsibility, the has accepted the of an advocate who was found to have threatened a Sessions Judge and obstructed court proceedings. The Court recalled its earlier order initiating against the lawyer, instead imposing a and a unique “” — planting 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings.
A That Exposed Misconduct
The case originated from a criminal petition filed by ten accused persons under , seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 5/2026 pending before the . The petitioners alleged and sought a .
The High Court, however, dismissed the on , with of Rs. 1,00,000. But while perusing the maintained by the Sessions Judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar discovered a disturbing pattern: the advocate representing the accused, , had “threatened the Court virtually and tried to hamper the Session case proceedings.”
From Contempt to
On April 16, the High Court passed a stringent order directing the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice and the Advocate General for initiation of . It also directed the to take action and ordered the filing of a criminal complaint under (now ).
But the advocate did not let the matter rest. He appeared before the Court on , requesting that the be expunged. On , and counsel argued on his behalf, and the advocate filed an tendering an .
The Court, after deep reflection and considering the submissions, decided to accept the apology — but not without a clear message.
Why the Court Initially Acted: Protecting the District Judiciary
Justice Sanjeevkumar explained the rationale behind the initial strong action, noting that in the District Judiciary are “in a vulnerable position and cannot defend themselves.” They are “ outside the Court” and can only make observations in their . “If this Court keeps silence, then certainly it would perpetrate others to do similar acts,” the judge observed.
The Court referred to the 's decision in Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash (1998), which reminded that “no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to the court or the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order.” It also quoted Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (1999) on the of courts to be courteous to the Bar.
The Noble Calling and the Fall from Grace
In an extensive discourse spanning nearly 50 paragraphs, the judge traced the historical role of lawyers in India’s freedom movement and the standards expected of the profession. Citing Sanjeev Datta v. Unknown (1995), the Court reminded that “the legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation… an advocate is not an agent of his client, but a dignified, responsible spokesman.”
The judgment also referred to the Rules on professional conduct, emphasizing that an advocate must “at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an .”
The Unusual Remedy: A Fine and 1,000 Saplings
While accepting the apology, the Court recalled only the three punitive directions: initiation of contempt proceedings, Bar Council action, and criminal prosecution. All other observations in the April 16 order remain intact.
As a “warning” and symbolic measure, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 payable to the . Additionally, has been directed to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings on government land or school/college premises and maintain them with water and fertilizer.
“The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves,” the Court observed, quoting Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanum Das Khatry (2001).
What This Means Going Forward
The advocate must file an of compliance by , with the next hearing set for . The case serves as a reminder that while the judiciary is willing to forgive, it will not forget. The unique combination of a fine and an environmentally restorative penalty signals a new approach to — one that seeks both accountability and redemption.
As the judgment eloquently concluded: “Justice has been pictured as with open eyes holding scale in one hand and the Constitution of India on the other hand… The judge and the lawyer should remember, first and foremost, that in weighing and balancing rights and privileges they are building together a monument in the .”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The in the District Judiciary, though they are having Judicial powers, are in a vulnerable position and cannot defend themselves; therefore, the are outside the Court.”
“An Advocate owes a duty to the Court, to his client and to society. A case in the hands of an Advocate is not only his personal brief, but a dispute is coming to the Court and inviting the attention of the Court to resolve it and ultimately, society will get the benefit of it.”
“Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise. The Advocate, being an has a duty to ensure smooth functioning of the Court.”
“The Advocates must remember that they are equal partners with the Judges in the administration of justice. If the lawyers do not perform their functions properly, it would be destructive of democracy and the .”
