Full-time Teacherf

- Whether a full time teacher can practice or not?

- Anees Ahmed v. University of Delhi (AIR 2002 Del) - some full time law teachers
were enrolled as an advocate by Delhi Bar; When BCI came to know, they asked
Delhi Bar to remove their names… PIL seeking removal of full time law teachers
of DU enrolled as advocates from roll of Delhi Bar; simultaneously, PIL by full
time law teachers of DU challenging BCI demanding their removal…

- Part 6, Chapter 2, Rule 7 (S. 49) - advocate shall not be a full time salaried
employe

- Rule V of Ordinance XI, Delhi University - restriction on any other trade or work
without prior permission

- Delhi Bar council rule, Rule 103 - any person in either part-time or full time
employment cannot be enrolled as an advocate, provided that a part-time
teacher of law could be admitted as an advocate

- The Advocates’ Right to take up Law Teaching Rules, 1979 (central
government) - Rule 3 - Right of practicing advocates to take up law teaching…
not more than 3 hours a day

- BCI Resolution No. 108, 1996 - resolution where BCI asked for removal of
names of the teacher from the roll of advocates.

- UGC letter, 1995 - Full time law teachers not permitted to get enrolled as an
advocate… exceptions are in PIL or legal aid matters, Chamber practice or legal
consultancy, and teachers of International law

- In this case, DU teachers argued that since they could teach for 3 hours a day,
their termination wrongful… However, here not the advocate coming to teach,
but the teacher going to practice.

- Delhi High Court held… Clear that concession of teaching available to lawyers
to go and teach for 3 hours, but teachers can’t be enrolled… Rule 3 of central
government rule applies post enrolment… Teacher has diverse responsibilities
and 3 hour rule won’t be possible… Still, clari ed that no bar on appearing in
public interest litigations under legal aid… BCI does have power to direct
removal of some advocates who were in full time employment… Rule of

Page 1 of 35
fi
 estoppel not applicable on Delhi Bar Council as that would imply everything
done is done for perpetuity

- Thus, now, as per UGC regulations, they have the right to chamber practice to a
limited extent; going against the AK Balaji case which included chamber
practice within de nition too… Still remains a grey area

Conduct of Advocates
- Part 6, Chapter IIIA - Consistent with the obligation of the Bar to show a
respectful attitude towards the Court and bearing in mind the dignity of Judicial
O ce, the form of address to be adopted whether in the Supreme Court, High
Courts or Subordinate Courts should be as follows: “Your Honour” or “Hon'ble
Court” in Supreme Court & High Courts and in the Subordinate Courts and
Tribunals it is open to the Lawyers to address the Court as “Sir” or the
equivalent word in respective regional languages.

- As the words “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” are relics of Colonial post, it is
proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to the Court

- Chapter IV - Forms of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates

- Part 6, Chapter 2 - 

- Rule 1 - Duty to the Court - Dignity, Self-Respect, Presentable, etc.

- Rule 2 - Duty to the Client - Accept brief, etc.

- Rule 3 - Duty to Opponent - shall not in any way communicate or negotiate
upon the subject matter of controversy… advocate shall do his best to carry out
all legitimate promises made

- Rule 4 - Duty to Colleagues - An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise

- S. 35 - Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has

reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or
other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary
committee.

(2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall x a date for the
hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate
concerned and to the Advocate-General of the State.

(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate

Page 2 of 35
ffi
fi
fi
 concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, may make
any of the following orders - dismiss complaint, reprimand advocate, suspend
advocate, remove name from roll

- Thus, proceedings against advocate on roll of State Bar Council in case of (a)
professional misconduct or (b) other misconduct

- S. 36 - Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has

reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll
has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for
disposal to its disciplinary committee.

- S. 36B - The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of the
complaint received by it under section 35 expeditiously and in each case the
proceedings shall be concluded within a period of 1 year… failing which such
proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India

- S. 37 - Any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a

State Bar Council made under section 35… may, within sixty days of the date of
the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the Bar Council of
India.

- S. 38 - Appeal to SC - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the

disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under section 36 or section
37… may, within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to
him, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court

- no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India shall be
varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially a ect the person aggrieved
without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

- S. 40 - An appeal, made under section 37 or section 38, shall not operate as a

stay of the order appealed against… but the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India, or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may, for su cient
cause, direct the stay of such order on such terms and conditions as it may
deem t.

- S. 42 - Powers of Disciplinary Committee - 


a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him
on oath

b) requiring discovery and production of any documents;

Page 3 of 35
fi
ff
ffi
 c) receiving evidence on a davits;

d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or o ce;

e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

f) any other matter which may be prescribed

- All proceedings before a disciplinary committee of a Bar Council shall be
deemed to be judicial proceedings

- S. 44 - Disciplinary committee of a Bar council may review its own petition

- S. 9 - Disciplinary Committees

- A Bar Council shall constitute one or more disciplinary committees

- Three members in each committee… two shall be persons elected by the
Council from amongst its members… third member is co-opted by the council
(Not elected, but selected… must have 10 years of practice)

Misconduct

- Other Misconduct -

- Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v. Balwant Singh & Ors., 2018 - Person involved in
family property dispute. Wanted sale to be null and void and then court to order
partition of the property. For this purpose, advocate hired. However, parties
settled outside the court and court agreed on demand to null and void the sale
deed and partition… One of the parties wanted to sell his part of the property,
and when he went to register the sale, there was an objection by the lawyer on
the sale claiming that the selling party is not the original owner… Advocate
intervened because the owner had borrowed some money from the advocate by
keeping land as security

- Complaint in Chattisgarh bar Council against the advocate on charges of
professional misconduct… Bar council suspended 2 years of practice… 

- Advocate led appeal in front of the BCI… BCI upheld the ndings but reduced
suspension to 1 year…

- Advocate led appeal before Supreme Court… SC held No rule of BCI
declares this as a professional conduct as raising a lawful objection not a
professional misconduct. Moreover, Act not done in the capacity of an advocate,
and objection was done in private capacity; so even if misconduct, not in the
capacity of a professional advocate.

Page 4 of 35
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
 - Baldev Singh Dhingra v. Madan Lal Gupta, 1999 - Person got himself enrolled
with Punjab and Haryana bar council in 1963… in 1965, he got selected in
judicial services… By rule, person must apply for suspension of license, or apply
for removal of name from state bar roll… He applied for suspension… He was
involved in several corruption cases as a magistrate; HC conducted inquiry and
found him guilty and passed an order of dismissal from post of magistrate… 

- The man than applied for resumption of certi cate of practice… State Bar
council allowed… 

- This order was challenged in front of the Bar Council (S. 48A - Revision
application) by some colleagues… BCI set aside order by SBC and ordered SBC
to initiate proceedings against this person under S. 35… Under S. 36B, if SBC
can’t dispose matter within 1 year, then transferred to BCI… Eventually, BCI
found out that person not guilty of professional misconduct and sets aside it’s
own order… 

- Appeal led before the Supreme Court, and the question was whether person
guilty of professional misconduct… appellants claimed that person was involved
in cases of bribery, thus it amounts to ‘other misconduct’; another contention
was - Since he applied for suspension of license, his name was still in the roll… 

- SC held - Even the term ‘other misconduct’ would apply only to people
practicing, like ‘professional misconduct’… moreover, not only to see whether
your name is on the roll or not, but to see whether you practice or not… Thus, in
this case, the person was not practicing, and thus, person found not guilty of
‘other misconduct’

- Reason to believe - nding a prima facie case

- Gopal Rao Ambadas Rao v. Maharashtra and Goal Bar Council - 


- Duty to Client clearly states that advocate can’t appear for di erent parties in
trial and appellate stage… In this case, Advocate argued a case and won in trial
court… appeal was led and the same advocate appeared for the opposite
party… Against professional etiquettes… Complaint led against person in State
Bar Council, and they form a 1 member inquiry o cer… Disciplinary committees
can’t be of just 1 person, and is di erent from such an inquiry o cer… 

- The appointment of inquiry o cer was challenged in front of the Supreme
Page 5 of 35
fi
fi
fi
ffi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
ff
ffi
 Court… SBC argued that inquiry o cer was necessary to determine ‘reason to
believe’… SC held that when complaint was led, a copy of the vakalatnama
was shown in both the trial case and the appeal case and these were su cient
to come to the conclusion that prima facie there was a case… If main contention
is clear from evidence provided, then no separate inquiry o cer was necessary
to determine ‘reason to believe’…

- Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. UOI (2003 SC)

- Questions 

(i) Whether adv have the right to strike?

(ii) To what extent higher judiciary may regulate the conduct of adv by making
rules?

(iii) How boundaries are drawn between the rule-making powers of the BCI and
that of higher judiciary?

- Background

- Interim order in Common Cause v. UOI (1995), where there was a working
paper in the a davit of BCI, where stance on strike was clari ed.

- The points of BCI in the working paper were:

(i) Strikes to be rare and not mandatory to join

(ii) No one shall be punished for not participating

(iii) Peaceful way of strike: wearing black armband etc. no violence

- BCI assured that the 3 clauses will be incorporated in the BCI Rules… But they
weren’t incorporated.

- Arguments by Harish Uppal


(i) Strike is illegal

(ii) Strike is not permitted where redressal is obtained by the court (legitimate
means)

(iii) Strike may be resorted to in the “rarest of rare case”: dignity, integrity or
independence of the Bar and/or the Bench is at stake - courts may ignore a
protest for not more than one day

(iv) There are alternate modes of protest eg: press release, interviews, carrying

Page 6 of 35
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
 banners, armbands etc.

- Lawyers cannot do anything that would hamper proceedings.

- SC held:

- Lawyers have no right to go on strikes. Lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of
clients cannot refuse to attend courts for strikes

- An Adv having case brief. Cannot refuse to appear because of the strike 

- Court cannot become privy to the strike by adjourning the hearing 

- Non-appearance may amount to professional misconduct as well as contempt
of court. Prof Misconduct - BCI punishment and Contempt of Court: court
punishment

- It is the duty of the BCI to control such unprofessional conduct of non-
appearance.

- “unbecoming manner will not have the right to appear in the courts. The BCI
cannot overrule such a regulation”.

- Moreover, SC clari ed that right of appearance in Courts is still within the
control and jurisdiction of Courts… Control of conduct in Court can only be
within the domain of Courts…  Article 145 of the Constitution of India gives to
the Supreme Court and S. 34 of the Advocates Act gives to the High Court
power to frame rules including rules regarding condition on which a person
(including an Advocate) can practice in the Supreme Court and/or in the High
Court and Courts subordinate thereto.

- An Advocate v. Bar Council of India, 1989 - A client hired the advocate…

Advocate withdrew the suit without the consent of the client… Complaint led
under S. 35; SBC referred to disciplinary committee and as couldn’t decide in 1
year (from ling of complaint), it transferred to BCI… Advocate was
reprimanded, so he approached the SC…

- First case of it’s kind where SC talked about procedures pertaining to S. 35

- SC asked “what is the nature of proceedings under S. 35” - SC held that
proceedings before disciplinary committee and BCI is ‘quasi-criminal’ in
nature… Reason is because of the kind of punishment… Suspension is a harsh
punishment, as it also strips them o dignity and respect; they also lose their
source of living…

Page 7 of 35
fi
fi
ff
fi
 - Bene t of doubt must be given to the accused person - since it is a quasi-
criminal proceeding

- Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt… Rule of preponderance of
probabilities does not apply here

- Even if it is a case of negligence by the advocate; if a matter of negligence,
then a red line must be drawn between negligence that is tolerable and
negligence that is not tolerable

- Principles of Natural Justice must be followed - reasonable opportunity of
being heard, procedure must be fair, etc.

- S. 37, S. 38 - “Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the State
Bar Council shall be varied by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of
India so as to prejudicially a ect the person aggrieved without giving him
reasonable opportunity of being heard"

- Requirement of framing charges - Whether charges are to be framed by the
Disciplinary committee or not? - Charge contains the allegations of the case,
and on that basis, evidence is given… You get to know nature of allegations
through charge and parties can defend themselves accordingly… SC held
charges must be framed

- In this case, BCI did not frame charges… SC returned the brief to BCI in this
case and directed them to start the matter afresh while framing charges… SC
speci cally said that citation of this case must be either ‘an advocate’ or ref
because the case was not decided on merits so the name of advocate would
remain private

- Salil Dutta v. TM & MC Co., 1993 - Suit for eviction led against a company…
Two I.A.s were led (Interlocutory application) but court said it will dispose of
together with the suit and it took 7 years to reach nal argument stage in the
suit… After 7 years, when suit was to be disposed, defendant advocate advised
client not to appear in front of court… On date of nal hearing, only advocate
appeared and party did not appear, and asked for 1 day’s adjournment… Court
allowed adjournment for 1 day… After 1 day, neither advocate not party
appeared. Court passed order ex parte which was not in favour of defendant.

- Defendant (company) set an application to set aside the ex parte order
Page 8 of 35
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 claiming that they were unaware of adjournment and only followed advise of
advocate… Request to set aside was dismissed.

- Appeal made before district court to set aside ex parte order which was
dismissed

- Appeal led before Calcutta HC… In open court, judge said appeal dismissed
but did not pass an order

- Then, when order was to be signed… Advocate on behalf of company then
led an application in the same high court that claimed that a precedent of SC
was in their favour which could not be placed (Ra q v. Munshilal, 1981) … Then
HC stated that precedent binding under S. 141 and it was in their favour… If
order passed without giving weightage to new precedent, then it would be per
incurium… Appeal allowed on the basis of judgement invoked… Order
previously passed in open court reversed

- In Ra q v. Munshilal, Advocate did not appear on rst date of hearing, and
court dismissed that appeal on the rst date of hearing, and then upon that
dismissal, an appeal was led before the Allahabad HC, which was rejected…
Then, SC held that any litigant who has to le a case approaches an advocate
and then his job is over as he can’t be a watchdog… In such a situation, client
not at fault but would pay the price for fault of advocate… Won’t punish client
for wrongful act of advocate

- In Salil Dutta case - Case went to SC and SC had to see whether order of
Calcutta HC was correct… In Ra q v Munshilal case, the appellant was a poor
villager and court must save them… In the present case, client is a company
who have access to resources and experts and thus cannot blindly apply case
of Ra q v. Munshilal… Moreover, it was a case of eviction and took 7 years to
come to nal hearing… 2 IAs were lled and these were also delaying tactics…
Moreover, Advocate asking not to appear was an afterthought by the company
to seek relief because can’t believe advocate telling company not to appear on
the nal date

- SC did not apply Ra q v. Munshilal case as company was just following delay
tactics


Page 9 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 __ MID SEMS __

Contempt of Court
- Constitutional mandate - A. 129, 215

- Only Judiciary has this power because it is the ultimate interpreter of law… such
a power necessary to actually implements its decisions.

- Order 39, Rule 2A (CPC) - Gives the court powers to grant injunction… If
injunction not obeyed, court can punish by attaching property, or passing an
order of imprisonment for 3 months… This provision does not call it contempt.

- S. 2 - De nitions

(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt

(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or
the doing of any other act whatsoever which… scandalises, prejudices,
interferes

- S. 3 - Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt

- S. 4 - Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt

- S. 5 - Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt… which has been heard and
nally decided

- S. 10 - Power of High Courts to punish for contempt of subordinate courts

- S. 12 - Punishment for contempt of court


(1) Simple Imprisonment upto 6 months; ne upto 2,000

- accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court… apology shall not be
rejected merely on the ground that it is quali ed or conditional if the accused
makes it bona de.

(3) where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers
that a ne will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment
is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that

Page 10 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it
may think t.

- S. 13 (b) - the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court,
justi cation by truth as a valid defence if it is satis ed that it is in public interest
and the request for invoking the said defence is bona de

- S. 19 - Appeal - An appeal shall lie as of right

Civil Contempt

- Civil Contempt - S. 2 (b) - Requires ‘ Will’


I. wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court

II. wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court

1. Maninder Jeet Singh Bitta v. UOI -


- Central government formulated a ‘High Security Plate Registration scheme’
under the MV Act, for regulation of High security number plates. Older plates
were to be replaced by new plates

- Assn. of Registration plates challenged this scheme by the Central
government… Argued that beyond central government’s power to create such
a scheme… The SC held that it was well within the powers of the Central
Government to pass such a scheme… States were now bound to implement
the scheme

- Disobedience by Haryana Government as they did not implement the scheme
for 8-10 years… Challenged in front of the SC

- SC held that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there are two types of
contempt proceedings, namely civil and criminal… SC held that civil contempt
not only by private citizens, but can be committed by the government too… It
might be possible that some government o cials make it di cult to execute,
but in such a case, time must be sought for. If they don’t seek time, then
lethargic attitude of o cials would amount to civil contempt

- Secretary of Road Transport Authority, Haryana, was held liable of civil
contempt and not following orders, ne of Rs 2,000 was imposed… Moreover,

Page 11 of 35
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
 Haryana Government was imposed with am exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000
separately

2. Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana -


- Some instructors were appointed by the State Government under a scheme
to educate adult illiterate people and drop out children between 5-15 years of
age.

- The job provided to the instructors was temporary in nature and as a result,
the salary wasn’t the same as permanent government teachers

- However, another scheme appointed ‘squad teachers’ and were doing a
similar job as instructors were getting paid at par with the permanent govt
school teachers

- The ‘instructors’ approached the SC contending that they were entitled to
equal pay… court held in favour and instructed the SG to pay equally

- Government of Haryana did not comply with the order which led to civil
contempt proceedings against them… Govt of Haryana argued that paying
them equally would render an additional burden of Rs 28 crore annually, and it
was impossible for them to pay at par.

- SC di erentiated between Execution proceedings and Contempt Proceedings

I) Execution proceedings - Order 20 (CPC) - Not concerned with why a party
could not comply with orders of court

II) Contempt proceedings - Consideration has to be given as to why order
could not be complied with… Here, circumstances beyond control… ‘Wilful’
missing

- It was held that aggrieved persons can approach the court to draw contempt
proceedings… However, SG not liable for contempt in this case as it was
impossible for them to obey the order… no wilful disobedience

- Criticism - SG should have clari ed it’s stance in the previous proceeding
itself… Moreover, the court should have sought a reply from the SG.

3. Vineet Kumar Mathur v. UOI -


- A letter was written to the SC by one, Vineet Kumar, regarding the pollutants
released in the ‘Gomti’ River by the nearby industries… The letter was treated
as a writ petition

Page 12 of 35
ff
fi
 - SC issued directions to the State Pollution Board, whereby the SPB would
have to visit and examine the industries… While inspecting, if they nd
de ciencies, then the industry would be halted… Halted industry should cure
the problem by March 21, 1993 and seek permission of the SPB to start
functioning again

- One, Mohan breweries failed to cure their de ciencies and their functioning
was halted… However, they made an application on 2nd April to the SPB to let
them function and the same was approved by the SPB.

- SC held SPB liable for civil contempt for wilfully disobeying it’s order

Punishment in civil contempt

- Disobey the order/decree/direction passed by the court causes civil contempt

- Breach of undertaking done in front of the court, including undertaking to submit

some amount in the court

- Disobedience must be wilful or deliberate

- There is no distinction between punishment for civil and criminal contempt…


- upto 2000 ne and 6 months imprisonment

- S. 12 - Punishment for contempt of court


(1) Simple Imprisonment upto 6 months; ne upto 2,000

- accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court… apology shall not be
rejected merely on the ground that it is quali ed or conditional if the accused
makes it bona de.

(3) where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers
that a ne will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment
is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that
he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it
may think t.

1. Pushpa Ben & Anr. v. Naran Das. 1972 - 


- Pushpa ben and another borrowed some money from the respondents, with a
promise to repay… they failed to repay loan leading to breach of obligation…
respondents led a criminal case of S. 420 (cheating) instead of ordinarily ling
money suit… While criminal case was pending, they compromised and drafted
Page 13 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 a deed of agreement with full money to be repaid… Made an application for
compounding the o ence of 420… Compromise was given a ect and accused
was acquitted.

- They failed to repay the loan again, and failed to comply with their own
undertaking, which was again a case of civil contempt (non-compliance with
undertaking in court)… They eventually were charged with civil contempt and
they found pushpa ben guilty and ordered for 1 month imprisonment.

- Appeal led before the SC under S. 19 of the contempt of courts act.

- Appellants have 2 main contentions

I. Non-compliance was not deliberate… SC held that with facts it was clear
that with their own undertaking, the non-payment was deliberate

II. S. 12 (3) invoked whereby there is a provision for civil prison when ne not
su cient to meet ends of justice… Argued that in civil contempt, ne must be
rule and jail must be exception… HC had given imprisonment simple
imprisonment instead of civil imprisonment..

- SC simply imposed ne of Rs. 1000 and didn’t send accused to prison

Criminal Contempt

1. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI -


- Sardar Sarovar dam was being built on river Narmada… the mega project
was allegedly responsible for natural calamities, and also displaced several
people

- During the construction, an NGO, Narmada Bachao Andolan, was formed…
NBA’s leaders, Medha Patkar, Dharmadhikari, Arundhati Roy kept ling writ
petitions in the SC to address the matter.

- while the matters were subjudice and under consideration, the SC also
directed the parties not to make any press statements

- However, Medha Patkar wrote an article in the Hindu criticising the SC’s
approach in the matter, and Arundhati Roy also wrote an article in a magazine
where she expressed her displeasure with the SC.

- SC held - “Ms. Arundhati Roy is not a party to the proceedings pending in
this court. She has, however, made comments on matters connected with the
case, being fully alive to the pendency of the proceedings in this court. Judicial
Page 14 of 35
ffi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
 process and institution cannot be permitted to be scandalised or subjected to
contumacious violation in such a blatant manner in which it has been done by
her.”

- However, no punishment… Court's shoulders are broad enough to shrug o
their comments and because the focus should not shift from the resettlement
and rehabilitation of the oustees

2. In Re: Arundhati Roy


- Following a Supreme Court order that allowed for the height of the dam to be
increased, the Respondent wrote an article criticising this decision… protests
were staged in front of the gates of the Supreme Court by Narmada Bachao
Andolan and the Respondent.

- It was brought to the notice of the court that slogans were being shouted by
the respondent which were demeaning to the judiciary outside the court
premises… SC issued a show cause notice on the same, and it was denied by
her, but her reply further insinuated the SC and questioned it’s intentions… She
individually questioned the CJI who had refused to let a sitting judge lead the
judicial inquiry into Tehelka scandal.

- Court found her stubborn and having lack of remorse. Also reiterated that
freedom of speech came with restrictions… It di erentiated between libel and
criminal contempt, whereby libel is individually maligning a judge on the basis
of his personal life, whereas contempt would be scandalising the institution.

- 2,000 ne; 1 day symbolic imprisonment

3. Perspective Publication Ltd v. State of Maharashtra


- In 1960s, one Krishnaraj Thackersey led a defamation suit against prominent
Bombay tabloid, Blitz, amounting to 3 lacs compensation. The case was
decided by Justice V.M Tarkunde and the compensation was awarded.

- Eventually, Perspective publication, who publish a newspaper daily, publish
an article, namely, “story of a loan and libel case”… it was published that there
was a private company named Khare Tarkunde, which had relatives, father and
son of Justice Tarkunde as members, which was given a loan of Rs. 10 lacs by
Bank of India, which had Thackersey as one of it’s members.

Page 15 of 35
fi
fi
ff
ff
 - The loan was guaranteed by an Insurance company against assets of only 5
lacs… The company was also already under a debt of Rs. 14 lacs.

- The Advocate General started contempt proceedings on the publication
house 

- Arguments made by the Publication house -

I. Article not originally written by them, but was picked up from a Gujarati
newspaper and they veri ed some facts but not all

II. Article published in a bona de manner

III. Article is true and factual

IV. Article amounted only as a fair criticism under S. 5

- HC of Bombay’s Decision -

I. This article extends the boundary of fair criticism

II. Attempts to shake judge’s judicial image

III. It is malicious

IV. Destroys public faith in judiciary… 

- Director of Perspective Publication punished with 1 month imprisonment;
1,000 ne

- Arguments made in the SC by the appellants - Statements were made in a
bona de manner, there is no more an o ence of scandalising the court…
argued that the proceedings in the case of thackersey were questionable as
dates were very fast and he didn’t even appear once.

- Thus, truth cannot be a defence upfront, as all citizens cannot simply be
allowed to comment on judiciary as it would undermine trust.

- SC upheld the Bombay HC judgement while citing several judgements

I. M.R. Reddy v. State of Madras - If allegations were false, then it won’t
undermine the competence of judiciary… Thus, it scandalises the court 

II. B.P Sharma v. State of UP - 

- 1st test - if statement interferes with administration of justice

- 2nd test - statement undermines or destroys con dence of public in judiciary

- Clearly stated that truthfulness of a Statement can only be a defence in libel
proceedings, not in contempt proceedings, as there is no provision for the
same (S. 13 with truth as defence was not there)

III. In Re: Vijay Kurle - Citizen must have some standing and knowledge before
Page 16 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
 challenging ability, capacity or knowledge of the judge


4. Het Ram Beniwal & Ors v. Raghuveer Singh & Ors.; Bhuramal Swami v.
Raghuveer Singh & Ors. (DECIDED TOGETHER) - 

- Trade Union in Rajasthan… Trade union was supported by the marxist
communist party… Leader of the trade union was killed by some persons and
thus criminal proceedings started.

- Since accused not arrested, they led for anticipatory bail in front of
Rajasthan High Court… Granted 

- When bail was granted, people close to murdered person were agitated…
They organised a dharna in front of the directorate of the area… during this,
some remarks were made against the court which were published in the
newspaper next day.

- Appellant 1 - Ex MLA Het Ram Beniwal - even in less serious cases it is
di culty to get bail but murderers got anticipatory bail

- Appellant 2, 3 (2 Lawyers) - general public has lost con dence in the law and
justice… all around there is rule of rich people whether it is bureaucracy or
judiciary.

- Appellant 4 - Sarpanch - there was in uence of money behind the
anticipatory bail of the accused.

- 3 ways in which Contempt of Court can be started (S. 15)

I. Courts themselves take suo Moto cognisance

II. Motion made by Advocate General (HC), or Attorney General (SC)

III. Private person may invoke contempt jurisdiction, whereby person makes
application to Adv Gen/Attorney Gen, and the AG give consent to the same

- Allegations - against them were that they made baseless allegations of bias
and corruption, and ran a systematic campaign to destroy the public
con dence in the judiciary

- Defences - Denied allegations of contempt… Agitating against the
appointment of special PP… Contempt complaint just to harass them

- Questions framed by HC -

I. Whether statements published in newspaper amounts to criminal contempt?

II. Whether editor’s liability for whatever is published in newspaper absolute, to
Page 17 of 35
ffi
fi
fi
fl
fi
 he is not liable for faithful reproduction of statements by someone else?

III. Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondents did make
statements attributed to them.

- Before HC, the appellants denied ever making such statements, but in
another press conference, they said that they stand by what they said in the
public gathering

I. Statements in newspaper ‘Lok Sammat’ amounts to criminal contempt…
scathing remarks have a tendency of creating a doubt about impartiality,
integrity and fairness

II. Unconditional apology tendered at earliest point of time can be accepted

III. Allegations were proved beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them with
2 months imprisonment

- S. 12 (1) - contempt of courts act - An apology shall not be rejected merely
on the ground that it is quali ed or conditional if the accused makes it bona
de.

- all but editor was punished



- Appeal led in front of SC under S. 19

- Defences before SC - It was fair criticism (S. 4, 5) hence not contempt…
allegations of in uence of money made against police not HC… Court should
not be too sensitive (Indirect Tax Practitioners v. RK Jain, 2010)

- Respondents - 5 journalists as witnesses of the Press conference…
newspaper editor’s admission as to correct reporting… apology to avoid
punishment, and not bona de

- SC - Right and interest of public in due administration of justice have to be
protected… No fair criticism on the merits of the case but talked about the very
behaviour of court… Considering circumstances, apology was not bona de.

- SC held guilty the editor also, but since 15 years for the entire trial,
imprisonment was waived o , but ne was upheld


5. Amber v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago, 1936 - (common

judgement used in many contempt cases in India too)

- “justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to su er the scrutiny
Page 18 of 35
fi
fi
fl
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
 and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.” 

- The Privy Council in the same judgment held as follows:

- “The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err
therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper
motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely
exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair
the administration of justice, they are immune.”


6. Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn. v. R.K. Jain - (cited only a paragraph in this
case but did not consider the overall judgement)

- “Ordinarily, the Court would not use the power to punish for contempt for
curbing the right of freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed
under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Only when the criticism of judicial
institution transgresses all limits of decency and fairness or there is total lack of
objectivity or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution then the
court would use this power.”

Apology as a Defence, Regret

- Apology as a defence, Purging oneself of the Guilt, remorse

1. Praveen C Shah v. KA Md. Ali -


- Advocate K A Md. Ali punished twice for committing criminal contempt by the
Kerala high court

- After he resumed practice, someone complained against him in the State Bar
Council of Kerala as there was a rule made by Kerala High Court (Rule 11)
whereby no advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of court shall be
permitted to appear, act or plead in any court unless he has purged himself of
the contempt (S. 34 of Advocates Act - rule making power of HC).

- SBC held that advocate violated Rule 11, thus debarring him from acting or
pleading in any court till he gets himself purged of contempt by an order of the
appropriate court.

- Appeal led in front of BCI, where they framed a question - ‘whether Rule 11
was binding upon the SBC or not’?… ‘if at all rule was binding, was SBC
justi ed in passing this order?’ - Independence and autonomy of the SBCs
Page 19 of 35
fi
fi
 cannot be surrendered by using rules like Rule 11… BCI under 35 (3) of
advocates act, only Bar councils would have the power to do actions like
restrict practice, remand, etc… automatic-deprivation of practice violative of
Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 21… BCI set aside the order passed by the SBC

- Appeal ned in front of the SC

I. How they dealt with BCI’s questions

- BCI ignored the judgement of SC Bar Assn. v. UOI (1998), whereby SC held
that preventing an advocate from resuming practice where he has not purged
himself of guilt is di erent from removal from roll… The Higher judiciary has the
power to deal with, regulate and govern whatever happens inside the court
room. BCs deal the conduct outside court room. Both these elds are
completely di erent… 

II. How they dealt with the issue of purging oneself of the guilt

A) Apology

- BCI held that purging oneself of contempt can be only by regretting or
apologising in the case of a completed action of criminal contempt… There is
no procedural provision in law to get purged of contempt by an order of an
appropriate court.

- SC - Apology not absolute unless it is made with bona de, at the earliest,
and with regret

B) Undergoing penalty

- Madan Gopal Gupta v. Agra university, 1974 - by undergoing penalty

- SC held no - especially in case of criminal contempt

C) then what is purging

- SC held that purging is a process by which an undesirable element is
expelled from one’s own self or society. It is a cleaning process… In case of
sin, purging of such sin is made through the expression of sincere remorse
coupled with doing the penance required.

- Cited black’s law dictionary - word ‘purge’ is given meaning to cleanse, to
clear. 

1) implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his conduct

2) To seek pardon from court concerned for what he did on the ground that he
really and genuinely repented and he has resolved to commit any such act in
Page 20 of 35
fi
ff
ff
fi
fi
 future

3) Not enough he tenders just an apology


- Still grey area as to the overlapping functions of Bar council and court to
reprimand

- Mainly seen that SC was not absolutely sure of apology as a mean to purge
oneself of guilt

Initiation of Contempt proceedings

Contempt committed in the presence of the court

- S. 14 - where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court

(1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon
its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its
presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in
custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as
early as possible thereafter, shall 

(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is
charged; 

(b) a ord him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge;

(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be o ered by
such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after
adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and

(d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be
just. 

(2) where a person charged with contempt applies, whether orally or in writing,
to have the charge against him tried by some judge other than the Judge or
Judges in whose presence or hearing the o ence is alleged to have been
committed, and the Court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in
the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be
allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the
facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think t
to issue as respects the trial thereof.

(3) it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or
Page 21 of 35
ff
ff
ff
fi
 hearing the o ence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness
and the statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be
treated as evidence in the case.

(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that a person
charged with contempt under this section shall be detained in such custody…
Provided that he shall be released on bail when conditions of bail ful lled…
Court may, if it thinks t, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him
on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid.

Proceedings based on cognizance

- S. 15 - Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases

(1) Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a
motion made by

(a) Advocate General

(b) any other person, with consent of Advocate General

(c) in HC of UT of Delhi, any law o cer appointed by Government

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court
may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a
motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such
Law O cer as the Central Government may, by noti cation in the O cial
Gazette, specify in this behalf. 

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt
of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation -

(a) In SC, Attorney General or Solicitor General

- Thus, 3 ways in which Contempt of Court can be started


I. Courts themselves take suo Moto cognisance

II. Motion made by Advocate General (HC), or Attorney General (SC)

III. Private person may invoke contempt jurisdiction, whereby person makes
application to Adv Gen/Attorney Gen, and the AG give consent to the same


1. Bal Thackeray v. Harish Pimpalkhute, 2005 -


- Bal Thackeray made a speech and made some contemptuous remarks,

Page 22 of 35
ffi
ff
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
 which were also published… Congress leader led a contempt complaint
before the Bombay HC, and argued that it scandalised the court and shake
people’s con dence.

- In this case, case was started without any of the 3 ways in which case can be
started… No suo Moto cognizance and no motion to AG.

- P.N. Duda v. P Shivshankar, 1988 - laid down a 4th way to initiate contempt
proceedings… a private petition where consent of AG not sent, then
application must be directly sent to the Chambers of the CJ or CJI as the case
may be, and it would require consideration of the CJ… “if any information is
lodged even in the form of a petition inviting this Court to take action under the
Contempt of Courts Act or Article 215 of the Constitution, where the informant
is not one of the persons named in Section 15 of the said Act, it should not be
styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side.
Such a petition should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders in
Chambers and the Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation
with the other judges of the Court whether to take any cognizance of the
information.”

- 22nd October, 1996, letter is given to AG… AG looks at the letter in
November, but stays silent… meanwhile, it was presumed on 2nd of December
that AG had consented, and the application was directly sent to the HC; thus it
started like a private petition and court started the proceedings… Bombay HC
punished Bar Thackeray with 7 days of imprisonment, 1000 ne

- In SC of India, it was contended that the initiation was wrong as S. 15, as well
as guidelines of PN Duda were not followed.

- SC states that it is evident that there was no suo Moto cognizance, thus rst
part of S. 15 did not apply

- Moreover, the petitioners nowhere in their application stated or demanded
that there must be suo Moto cognizance of the court… thus, evident that
parties pursued it as a private petition

- same contention was made in HC but HC held that it is a court of record
under A. 215 and thus they could develop their own way of trying the case.

- Even PN Duda judgement was not followed

- Thus, SC set aside the conviction made by HC.

Page 23 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
Offence of Scandalising the Court

- Contempt of court seeks to punish people for these things -


I. Scandalising the court

II. Interferes with administration of justice or traditional proceedings

- S. 2 (c) - scandalising the court (Contempt of courts act)

- Scandalising the court - destroy the reputation of the court… any act or
publication which harms the reputation of judiciary and the trust, con dence
people have on judiciary

- Right to freedom of speech is guaranteed to every individual, but is reasonably

restricted under 19 (2)

- Margaret Davis - The term ‘critique’ in this context refers to the process of
attaining an understanding of the foundations of any approach, theory or system
of thought. This involves not only a consideration of what a particular writer
consciously relied upon as the foundations for her or his theory, but also a close
analysis of the unstated assumptions which are associated with the way we see
the world.

- When article 19 was being discussed, there was also a proposal to restrict the
state with the o ence of contempt of court

- R.K. Sidhwa, in support of freedom of expression against judges too - ‘Judges
have not got two horns, they are also human beings. They are liable to commit
mistakes… we must safeguard the interests of the public… do you want to
make judge a super god?


- Article 19, ICCPR (Intl. Covenant on Civil and political rights) - India rati ed the
convention 

(1) Everyone would have right to opinions

(2) holistic right to express opinion

(3) Reasonable restrictions under ICCPR - Rights and reputation of other; for
protection of national security, public order, public health or morals

- Thus, no reasonable restriction in the name of contempt of court

- Ideally there should not be any con ict between between municipal laws and
international law

Page 24 of 35
ff
fl
fi
fi
 - Proposal by Indian delegates when ICCPR was being drafted - Systematic
dissemination of false reports harmful to friendly relations among nations and of
expressions inciting to war or national, racial or religious hatred; attacks on
founders of religions…; fair administration of justice

- Thus, even after proposal, the point of ‘fair administration of justice’ was not
included as a restriction

- Human Rights Committee in it’s General Comment 34 (2011) - In the event of

confusion between the scope of freedom and the limitations to it, the former
would prevail

- a limitation put in imprecise terms is antithesis to the spirit of freedom of
opinion and expression

- It should not be used to hamper ‘democratic tenets and human rights

- limitations should be used to prevent criticism of public gures and institutions

- Thus, International law in favour of expression, whereas India restricts speech

that could lead to contempt of court


- India’s compliances to international legal obligations -


- de nition of o ence is quite indeterminate

- fair comment on the merits of any case

- weak defence of truth… even if somebody is speaking the truth, this truthful
statement is also subject to restrictions

- Scandalising the court is not covered within limitations under ICCPR

- o ence of scandalising the court has the potential to suppress and muzzle
democracy

- violates principle of natural justice (judiciary is both the victim and the
adjudicator)


- Practice in this stead in England -


- McLeod v. St. Aubyn, 1899 - “but it must be considered that in small colonies
consisting principally of coloured populations the enforcement in proper cases
of committal for contempt of court for attacks on the court court may be
absolutely necessary to preserve in such a community, the dignity of, and
respect for the court

Page 25 of 35
ff
fi
ff
fi
 - Thus, there is an element of coercion whereby third world countries deemed as
uncivilised people are not deemed worth of criticising the court

- Law Commission of England and Wales, 2012, abolished the o ence of
‘scandalising the court’ under these grounds -

I. O ence con icts with freedom of speech and expression

II. Preventing criticism might contribute to public perception that judges are
engaged in a cover-up of wrong committed by them

III. Vagueness in conditions for the o ence

IV. It has become obsolete in practice

V. Comments against judges can be punished under law of defamation too

VI. ‘There is something inherently suspect about an o ence both created and
enforced by judges which targets o ence remarks about judges’


- 274th Law commission of India, 2018 -


- favoured retaining the o ence of ‘scandalising the court’

- colonialism is not just an episode in history, rather a habit - the habit to
dominate, rule and subjugate


1. In Re: Justice CS Karnan, 2017 -


- Justice CS Karnan, formerly a judge of the Madras High Court wrote several
letters to the CJ, claiming that CJ not including him in many of the
administrative committees of the Madras HC. Also stated that collegium hardly
undertakes lawyers from the SC, ST or minority communities for elevation to
judgeship… Subsequently he wrote a letter to police commissioner, he asked
the police to lodge a complaint against judges named in the letter as guilty of
discriminating against a judge from the Scheduled Caste… Third letter to the
PM (Narendra Modi), where he said that former CJI Justice TS Thakur was
once shown crying in front of central government whereas once he was seen
appreciating central government, and deemed it as a weeping drama. Also
raised the issue of minority representation. Also alleged that one judge of
Madras HC who committed rape on one of his interns within the HC
premises… Another letter to registrar where he alleged that one judge from
Madras HC has 2 concubines… Another letter to another Madras HC where he
Page 26 of 35
ff
fl
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
alleged that he was having an illicit relationship with another lady judge and her
daughter committed suicide upon coming to know about the same.

- CJ of Madras HC then wrote a letter to CJI asking for transfer of Justice CS
Karnan… Then he was transferred to Calcutta HC… Karnan responded to the
transfer by ordering a stay on the SC's order. The matter was then heard by a
two-judge bench of the Supreme Court which lifted the stay… Karnan did not
stop at that, he passed an order to register a case under the SC/SC atrocities
law against the two SC judges. After a closed door meeting with the then CJI
TS Thakur, Karnan agreed to move to Calcutta high Court.

- CS Karnan started suo moto proceedings against the 7 judges as part of the
bench… Since he did not appear an arrest warrant was made… he did not
accept, but he appeared on the next date, where he apologised unconditionally
and withdrew all allegations… However, meanwhile, he wrote a letter to CBI
against the 7 judge bench to protect the 20 judges named

- Eventually, SC started Suo Moto contempt proceedings against Justice CS
Karnan for the o ence of scandalising the courts… SC placed a stay on any
judicial works… First 2 hearings he did not appear and wrote 2 more letters to
the bench sitting in the case, which was a 7 judge bench. In 1st letter, he wrote
that since he is a sitting judge, no contempt proceedings can be started
against him, and only an inquiry can be started under the judges’ inquiry act.
Moreover, the SC bench must be reconstituted because some of the judges
hearing the case were charged in his letter… 2nd letter, he named several
judges and said they were corrupt and had evidence. Also raised the point of
inadequate representation

- after he apologised, a mental tness test was ordered, but it was found that
he was mentally t and of sound mind.

- SC sentenced CS Karnan to 6 months of imprisonment, and was the rst
sitting HC judge to be imprisoned.



- Critiquing the aforementioned judgment

- Court observed that court did not withdraw his statements and allegations…
However, Justice Karnan had submitted a written apology, but was not
accepted by the SC… In contrast, in the case of Prashant Bhushan, apology
Page 27 of 35
ff
fi
fi
fi
 was sought even on the nal judgment day.

- Order of conduct of medical examination to ascertain his mental tness…
However, in the same time, he was asked to give a written statement, while his
medical tness was also under question by the SC.

- Justice Karnan repeatedly claimed that there was evidence behind his
allegations… but question was whether the evidence would actually matter in a
contempt of court case

2. EMS Namboodiripad v. T Narayanam Nambiar, 1970 - 


- Kerala, 1960… EMS Namboodiripad… Elected CM, where after his election
as CM, in his address, he stated that judiciary is a part of the class rule, thus
dominating section of people, and thus, is oppressive in nature. Also stated
that judiciary favours those who are ruling class and oppress the working
people. Also stated that all these are teachings of Marx and Engels and this
would be the CMs duty to let his people know… “HC and SC can haul me up,
if they want”

- HC of Kerala relied upon the Indian express, and started contempt
proceedings.

- Defences -

I. Freedom of speech and expression

II. Whatever said was not personal opinion, but gave expression to marxist
philosophy

III. Fair criticism of judiciary not wrong… his duty to educate public, and what
he said did not criticise any particular judge

IV. He had always enforces the judgements of the court and thus, is a law
abiding citizen

V. Criticism of the judicial system or of judges going against the spirit of
legislation should be permissible

- HC did not accept, and found him guilty of scandalising the court, and ned
him 100 Rs, failing to pay which he would have to go through 1 month simple
imprisonment



- Appeal led before the SC, with similar contentions… Also cited some foreign
Page 28 of 35
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 judgements which claimed that scandalising the court is now an obsolete
o ence.

- SC 

I. Nature of o ence not obsolete in India

II. On freedom of speech and expression - it is not absolute and comes with
restrictions

III. On the entire marxist idea, it was never directly alleged that the judiciary
was oppressive but always the legal system overall… Claimed that the
accused did not go through marxism properly and distorted… Moreover, SC
also held that Engles only claimed that judiciary just an evil adjunct of the
administration of class legislation

IV. Writing brought to the court make it obvious that he distorted marxist
teachings, and claimed that courts do not originate from class rule but
originate from the government, as they often strike down laws by Parliament
and judgements against the government

- SC reduced the ne from Rs 100 to Rs 50, but ndings of conviction were
maintained… on failure of payment of ne, then 7 days simple imprisonment.



- Was it really possible for the judges to understand marxist philosophy within a
time span of few weeks and claim expertise on it… Conviction not on
scandalising, but technically on the fact that EMS distorted the teachings

- Prof Upendra Baxi on this case - judiciary assuming a new role of pedagogue
in political theory… mode of paternalistic adjudication.

Subordinate Court

- Daroga Singh v. B.K Pandey, 2004 - 


- Jokhu Singh, Police o cer, examined by the court in a trial as a witness in a
case… on that day of trial, cross examination could not happen, so judge xed
another date for cross… he did not appear on that date so a show cause notice
was sent via the SP, but despite show cause, he again did not appear… Then
another wireless message was sent on the next date but he still did not show
up… Next time a show cause was sent to argue why contempt proceedings
should not be started against you and non bailable warrant was issued…

Page 29 of 35
ff
ff
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
 - Eventually he was arrested, and when applied for bail, application was
rejected.

- After that, police o cers came in civil uniforms in the court, and these police
o cers assaulted the trial judge and he lost consciousness.

- Trial court sent a report to the HC of Bihar… Group of police o cers were
found and found guilty of criminal contempt… Appeal led in SC under S. 19

- 3 main questions before the SC -

I. S. 10 (proviso) - Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a
contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it
where such contempt is an o ence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860).

- Allegations under IPC 228, thus there is bar on HC jurisdiction under S. 10

- SC referred to it’s decision in the case of Bathina R. Reddy v. State of Madras,
1952 - “proviso applies only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute
contempt are punishable as contempt under IPC, but not where these acts
merely amount to o ences of other description under IPC

- S. 228 does not anywhere use the word ‘contempt of court’

- Thus, S. 10, proviso does not apply… IPC 228 makes intentional insult to
judge or interruption as an o ence, but not as contempt of court

II. HC has narrower powers to punish for contempt of subordinate judiciary

- S. 10 and S. 15 are co-extensive, that is, they work hand in hand… The power
that HC has to punish for contempt of itself, is same as power to punish for
contempt of subordinate judiciary… they signify similar nature of powers and
can’t narrow down S. 10

- Legislation used the word ‘same’ so can’t narrow it down 

III. Procedural lapses by HC.

- held that contempt proceedings neither civil nor criminal but Sui generis, that
is, can lay down it’s own procedures, as long as not arbitrary

- contention that they were not given opportunity of hearing, was invalidated by
looking at HC judgement as they were called upon to cross examine but didn’t
show up.

Page 30 of 35
ffi
ff
ffi
ff
ff
fi
ffi
Professional Misconduct

- Can court bar person from entering court premises also while punishing for
contempt of court


1. SC Bar Assn. v. UOI, 1998 


- Demarcates powers of SBC and High Court

- Court can bar person from entering court premises, only when they ask
person to purge himself of the guilty.

- Advocates Act gives that power to the SBC, i.e. removal of name from roll.

2. Praveen C Shah v. KA Mohd Ali, 2001 again referred to the judgement and
upheld that HCs and SCs can only keep the advocate out of premises when
they deem it t that they have to purge themselves of the guilt

3. Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI, 2003 - this case on right of advocates to non
strike… However in this case, if HC or SC prevent advocate from entering
court premises, it should not be considered as punishment, but prevent them
from entering to preserve their dignity, respect and have orderly court
proceedings.

- Otherwise the punishment power only with SBC which prevents advocate
from entering

- After this, 2 grounds which allowed court to prevent advocate from entering

I. To purge oneself of guilt after contempt of court

II. To preserve court’s dignity, respect and ensure orderly court proceedings

4. R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi HC, 2009 -


Nizamuddin Railway Station New Delhi… Few people after coming back from a
party and speeding, they crashed it onto a group of people on the road killing
many…

- After 4-5 days of incident, a person named Sunil Kulkarni goes to the nearby
Police Station and tells the police that he has seen the entire incident
happening and is the only eye witness… Police asked why he came so late,
whereby he claimed that he had to catch a train from Delhi to Bhopal and thus
could not come… Police recorded his evidence.


Page 31 of 35
fi
 - After a few years with the ongoing trial, Sunil Kulkarni came into question…
His address was found to be false… Once he made an application to trial court
where he claims that accident to take place by a truck, not a car and police
forced him to say accident was by car… Sunil Kulkarni’s lifestyle changed as
he was staying in expensive hotels and buying cars… Through call record of
Sunil, found that he was in contact with defence lawyer, prosecution lawyer,
and father of accused person… These things made his testimony questionable.

- NDTV did sting operations, where they contacted Sunil Kulkarni and he co-
operated… It was clear that the lawyers on both sides had arrangements with
key witnesses… Delhi HC took cognizance of the same on grounds that ‘(b)
prejudices or interferes with the course of any judicial proceeding’ and ‘(c)
interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner’

- Both the advocates were served show cause notices… eventually found them
guilty of contempt of court and should not enter Delhi HC premises or any
subordinate court under it for 4 months… Their designation of Senior
Advocates was also removed and imposed ne but no imprisonment.

- Appealed before the SC of India… Issues -

I. Questioned authenticity of e-Records as authenticity not checked by Delhi
HC

II. Su cient opportunity to defend not given

III. Rules of fair trial violated

IV. Why NDTV was not pushed

- SC held -

I. Regarding prevention from entry in Delhi HC, it was held that Delhi HC made
no rules for such a provision under S. 34 of the Advocates Act… Thus, the
denial of entry was without a legislative backing… As a result, all the HCs who
had not framed rules were directed to do so within 4 months of this judgement

II. Being a court of record, HC can formulate it’s own rule, but Natural justice
must be followed



- Thus, Courts can prevent entry of advocates in the court premises through
rules framed under S. 34 of the Advocates Act, and after providing a
reasonable opportunity of being heard

Page 32 of 35
ffi
fi
 5. Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of UP, 2016 - 

- criminal contempt was started on the advocate as he misbehaved with
judges 2-3 times… The judge made a report to the Allahabad HC… High Court
found the appellant guilty of Criminal Contempt for intimidating and threatening
a Civil Judge and imprisoned him for 2 months, 2000 ne

- Appeal led in front of the SC, where it was contended that he apologised

- SC held -

I. Is 2 year bar under S. 24A of the advocates act also applicable post-
enrolment

- SC held yes, although the BCI was opposed to it… there would be a cooling
o period after suspension even post-enrolment

II. SC and HC are courts of record and they can control conduct of advocates
inside the court room

III. The court suspended the license of Mahipal Singh Rana for 5 years, thus
giving the higher judiciary power to even suspend license in case of contempt

IV. SC set aside the imprisonment order, but suspended his license for 5 years
followed by a cooling o period, where he would only be allowed to re-enter if
he purged himself of guilt.

Revision
1. Civil Contempt (either direct question, or on ‘deliberate’… question also can be
on punishment - s 12(2) in case of Pushpaben v Naran Das)

- De nition - S. 2 (mention elements of civil contempt)

a. Maninder Singh Bitta judgement

b. Niaz Mohammad judgement (ghosh book)

c. Vineet Kumar judgement (ghosh book)

- Punsihment

a. Pushpaben v. Naran Das

2. Criminal Contempt (several aspects under S. 2)


a. Interfering with court’s proceedings or administration of justice

- RK Anand Judgement

- Mahipal Singh Rana Judgement

- Daroga Singh judgement 

Page 33 of 35
ff
fi
fi
ff
fi
 b. Scandalising the court

- Arundhati Roy case

- EMS Namboodaripad judgement

- CS Karnan

- Perspective publication case

- Hetram Beniwal

- etc.

3. Contempt of subordinate court


- S. 10

- Daroga Singh judgement

- Mahipal Singh Rana

4. Di erence between criminal contempt and tort of libel


- Perspective Publication

- Arundhati Roy

5. Defence of Fair criticism of judicial act


- S. 5

- Hetram Beniwal case

- Perspective publication

- Arundhati Roy judgement

6. Apology as a defence

- S. 12 (1) - proviso plus explanation

- Hetram Beniwal

- Arundhati Roy

- Praveen C Shah

7. Truth as a defence

- S. 13 (b) 

- started with perspective publication

- Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn. v. R.K. Jain

- Prashant Bhushan Case (2020) -  truth is a valid defence in the cases of
contempt of court only when it is bona de and in the public interest.

8. Exceptions, defences and cases where no liability for contempt arises


- S. 3 - 9

- S. 13

Page 34 of 35
ff
fi
9. Professional Misconduct

- SCBA judgement

- Praveen C Shah

- Harish Uppal case

- RK Anand 

- Mahipal Singh Rana judgement

10. Post Colonial Critique of law relating to scandalising the court


- slides… plus CS Karnan judgement

- can also critique about Purging oneself of guilt through Praveen C Shah case

11. Cognizance and initiation of contempt of court


- S. 14, 15

- Bal Thackeray case

12. Contempt by a judge


- S. 16

- CS Karnan judgement

Page 35 of 35