Back
convicts advocate for for appearing drunk in court
The has convicted an advocate of , sentencing him to one day's imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 for appearing drunk in court and shouting at a judicial officer. The bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T found that the advocate, , committed "" by making and disrupting proceedings.
Two Incidents of Misconduct
The case arose from two incidents in before the . On , despite his case not being listed, Kaushik appeared in court and yelled at the presiding officer, alleging the judge had taken bribes from his wife in a domestic violence case. He also shouted at the bench clerk. Although he submitted an apology letter on , his behavior worsened.
Just days later, on , Kaushik returned to the same court in an inebriated state. While senior counsel was arguing a matter, Kaushik interrupted him in a "disrespectful tone" and demanded that his case be heard. When the judge intervened, Kaushik continued yelling. He was sent to the Civil Hospital, Karwar, where a certificate of drunkenness was issued.
The Court's Legal Analysis
The High Court examined , which defines as acts that scandalise or lower the authority of a court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The bench relied on precedents, including , which held that alleging bias against judges constitutes contempt, and , which clarified that does not protect that scandalises the judiciary.
The court rejected Kaushik's defence that he suffered from epilepsy and was his bedridden mother's sole caretaker. It noted that he had
"not been able to place any
"
and had shown no remorse.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment sharply criticised Kaushik's conduct:
"He has committed aggravated
by
against Judicial Officers as well as the Judges of the Court."
The bench further observed:
"Far from expressing any remorse for the initial
committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole."
The Sentence and Its Implications
Finding the charges proved, the court convicted Kaushik under
. At sentencing, the bench noted that he
"has not expressed any regret and continues his adamant stand."
Considering the gravity of the contempt, his age, and profession, the court imposed a sentence of
for one day—until the rising of the court—along with a fine of ₹2,000, payable within 15 days. In default, he must undergo an additional day of
.
The court ordered that Kaushik be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to issue a under Rule 16 of the (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. The ruling underscores that even advocates who are parties in person must maintain and respect for , or face serious consequences.
