SC order on contempt

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, OCT. 9. In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that an advocate punished for contempt of court cannot appear thereafter as a counsel in the courts, unless he purges himself of such contempt. A Bench, comprising Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, did not approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor was sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case were the contemnor was convicted of criminal contempt.

Mr. Justice Thomas, writing the judgment, observed that the danger in giving accord to the said view was that if a contemnor was sentenced to a fine he could immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct.

He said if an advocate was found guilty of criminal contempt, the first thing to be done for purging the guilt was to implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his conduct.

Mr. Justice Thomas said the next step was to seek pardon from the court concerned for what he did on the ground that he really and genuinely repented and that he had resolved not to commit any such act in future.

``It is not enough that he tenders an apology. The apology tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court on being impressed of his genuineness, accepts the apology, then it could be said that the contemnor has purged himself of the guilt,'' he said.

Mr. K.A. Mohd. Ali, an advocate practising in courts in Ernakulam district of Kerala, was found guilty of contempt by the Kerala High Court, but he continued to practise in the same courts. Mr. Pravin C. Shah, representing Lalan Road Resident's Association, Kochi, brought to the notice of the Kerala State Bar Council, that the delinquent advocate continued to practise and the Council debarred Mr. Ali from practising until he got himself purged of the contempt of court. On an appeal from Mr. Ali, the Bar Council of India set aside the State Council's order. Against this, Mr. Pravin preferred the present appeal to the Apex Court.

Disposing of the appeal, Mr. Justice Thomas observed ``when the rules stipulate that a person who committed contempt of court cannot have the unreserved right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in the courts without any qualm or remorse, the Bar Council cannot overrule such a regulation concerning the orderly conduct of court proceedings''.

He observed ``courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence to the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner''.

``The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour, standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same day, unaffected by the contemptuous behaviour he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy off the institution of courts,'' Mr. Justice Thomas observed.

He made it clear that in this case till such an order was passed by the court, the delinquent advocate would continue to be under the spell of the interdict contained in Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules framed under the Advocates Act.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : PM seeks Sonia's cooperation
Next     : Nobel Physics