KES’ SHRI JAYANTILAL H.
PATEL LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI
TOPIC – COMMENTED BY THE SUPREME COURTCRITISIZING THE
STATUS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE CONTEXT OF
INDIGNITY TOWARDS THE COURT
LEGAL PRACTICAL TRAINING – 1
A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
The First Semester of L.L.B Course
By
NAME: - GYANESH YADAV
First Year LL. B,
Division: - C,
Roll No: - 57
Under The Supervision of
Prof. Vishalakshi Sathianatha
11th January 202
1
INDEX
[Link] PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
1. Introduction 3
2. CASE 1: SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL) NO. 1 OF 2020 5
CASE 2: SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 2 OF
3. 2019 6
4. CASE:3 SUO-MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1 OF 2017 7
5. CASE4: Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India 2 SSC 584 8
(1998)
6. CASE 5: A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2011 SC 308 9
7. Reference 10
2
Introduction:
Legal field is considered one of the most reputed and Noble professions. Hence it is the
responsibility of the entire society and legal professional community to care for the Integrity and
dignity of the courts. A certain degree of fairness should be maintained towards the Honorable
The courts and the Courts. Any action which Malines or lowers the dignity of the court must be
criticized. Hence, to prevent the legal institutions from unfair criticism and to prevent the
reputation and dignity of the courts (legal institutes) in the eyes of citizens of the country,
contempt of the court has been introduced.
Contempt of Court: - There is no definition is given about contempt of court in the
constitution which makes it a little vulnerable as there no framework or tool guide is
available w.r.t to contempt of court, if a definition would have been given then there
would have been more proper interpretation of contempt of court would have happened,
however glimpse of the same can be observed under several provisions.
Before the onset of the Constitution, contempt of court was not much recognized
although some laws did find their existence in their provisions. However, after the
enforcement of the constitution, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on
the Right to speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Contempt of court is two types; it can be Civil or criminal. The Supreme court and High
courts have the authority to punish contempt of court in accordance with the provisions.
According to article 129, the Supreme court has the power to punish any conduct of
contempt of court itself.
As per Article 215, high courts have the power to punish for the contempt of itself.
Moreover, as per Article 142(2), the Supreme court has been augmented with the power
to pass any order punishing the contempt of the court itself.
a) Civil Contempt is defined as WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE of any judgment decree,
direction, or order of the court. Where Willful is Men’s rea (i.e., guilty mind) and
Disobedience is actus reus (guilty act). As per sec 2(b) Civil contempt serves two
purposes (i) To retain the authority of the judicial chair
(ii) To ensure justice to the party in whose favor a decision is passed.
3
Civil contempt requires that the order or decision disobeyed must be by a court having
jurisdiction. If it has been passed without jurisdiction, it is not Binding on the party
against whom such an order was issued. In such cases, the burden to prove that there is
no jurisdiction is on the person who alleges it. In Civil Contempt of court, it is necessary
for the disobedience to be intentionally termed as willful under the act.
What is COURT – A test exists to characterize an authority aa s court: -
(a) such authorities must be a judicial power entitled to designate disputes between
contesting parties.
(b) The source of this power must be through attributes of a court.
(c) The power of such authorities must emanate from a statute. (i.e. written law passed by
parliament and legislative assembly)
(d) The decision passed by such an entity must be authoritative and final.
b) Criminal Contempt of court:
U/s 2(c) of the contempt of the court act, 1971, Criminal contempt is defined as
publication whether by words spoken/written or by signs or by visible representation or
otherwise of matter of the doing of any act whatsoever which:
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower or tends to lower the authority of any
court.
(ii) Prejudice or interference or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceeding.
(iii) Interfere or tend to interfere with or obstacle or tends to obstruct the
administration of justice in any manner.
SCANDAL:
Publication: Speaking to third parties / making info available to other parties.
Visible representation: Offense that is visible
Scandalizing means criticizing a judge as a judge for the purpose of the act.
(i) It is generally scandalization
(ii) Interference between a particular Judicial/ proceeding. Eg. Media
4
CASE 1: SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL) NO. 1 OF 2020
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.
FACTS:
Prashant Bhusan is a very senior advocate who is known for his extraordinary contribution
towards the legal fraternity along with many lank mark cases. He has tweeted about the
administration of justice by CJI SA Bobde. The first tweet attributed responsibility to the
Supreme Court for ‘destructing’ India’s democracy for the past six years.
The first tweet was on 27th June'2020 which was -
“When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been
destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the
Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs”.1
The second tweet by Prashant Bhusan negatively pictured the then Chief Justice of India SA
Bobde while riding a motorcycle.
his second tweet On 29 June, where he shared an image of CJI Bobde sitting on a Harley
Davidson superbike, commenting that the CJI was sitting on a bike belonging to a BJP leader, at
a time when the Supreme Court was “denying citizens their fundamental right to access Justice”
because it was in lockdown mode.
A petition was filed against his second tweet in court, supreme court took suo moto
acknowledgment of the petition and initiated contempt of court proceeding.
The court said that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice
in disrepute and can undermine the dignity and authority of the Institution of the Supreme Court
in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of the public at
large.
JUDGMENT:
As the alleged contemnor No.2 is concerned, the Supreme court accepted the explanation given
by it, that it is only an intermediary and that it does not have any control over what the users post
on the platform.2 It has also shown bona fides immediately after the cognizance was taken by this
1
Talukdar, S., & Singh, P. (2021). Critical Analysis of the Prashant Bhusan Contempt Case and Its Impact on India's
Democracy. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 2147
2
[Link]
5
Court as it has suspended both tweets. We(SC), therefore, discharge the notice issued to the
alleged contemnor No.2.
As a result, we(SC) hold alleged contemnor No.1 – Mr. Prashant Bhushan guilty of having
committed criminal contempt of this Court.
CONCLUSION:
Here, the tweet by Mr. Prashant Bhusan was directly on the judiciary. In India as well as CJI, the
judiciary is considered with the highest esteem.
The judiciary is considered the last hope for citizens if justice is not delivered anywhere the
Supreme Court is the epitome of the Judiciary and this kind of act or comment may lead to a loss
of belief in the judiciary system at the citizen level. Moreover, there is the possibility of losing
the confidence of other judges in the country in its highest court.
Most importantly as there is no definition of contempt of court mentioned in our constitution,
hence due to lack of a proper framework it is a little vulnerable.
CASE 2: SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 2 OF 2019
RE: VIJAY KURLE & ORS. …ALLEGED CONTEMNOR (S)
FACTS:
A copy of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the
Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India, and the
Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
In the said letter, Vijay Kurle and Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha, and Mathew Nedumpara
sent letters to CJI Ranjan Gogoi on 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019.
The letter was highly disrespectful and scandalous against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and
Justice Vineet Saran.3
JUDGMENT:
Though not so much in the oral arguments but in the written arguments the alleged contemnors
have also raised the plea of truth as a defense. Truth as a defense is available to any person
charged with contempt of Court.
3
Kashyap, H., & Rathore, P. (2021). Law of Contempt: Prevention of Scandalisation of Court or a Scandal to Curb
Free Speech?. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 2958
6
4
However, ongoing through all the written arguments and the pleadings, other than saying that
the Judges had misinterpreted the judgments of this Court or had ignored them or that Justice
R.F. Nariman was biased, there is no material placed on record to support this defense.
The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be
made against the Judges of the highest Court of the country.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we hold all three alleged contemnors i.e. Shri Vijay
Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha, guilty of contempt.
We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Siddharth
Luthra, amicus curiae. We also reject all the baseless allegations leveled against him by the
contemnors5
CONCLUSION:
In this case, all three contemnors were already in responsible legal positions and the fourth
contemnor disassociated himself from this case. While making scandalous allegations they
reached out to CJI and the President of India too, moreover, complaint letters were circulated on
social platforms too. 6
This Kind of act will question the dignity and deteriorate the faith of citizens towards the judicial
system. Moreover, sending a complaint letter directly to the president gives a message that they
wanted to create pressure to terrorize the judicial system.
Against these allegations, there was no concrete evidence available nor produced before the
court. Hence it was very much necessary to punish such a scandalous and scurrilous act.
CASE:3 SUO-MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1 OF 2017
In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan
FACTS:
Justice C S Karnan accused many high court judges of being corrupt, impartial, and dependent.
He was infamous for his actions in court, accusing many high court judges of being corrupt,
impartial, and dependent.
4
[Link]
5
[Link]
6
[Link]
7
Justice Karnan accused the then-Chief Justice of the Madras High Court of overturning one of
his decisions. Justice Karnan also accused the judges of discriminating against him on the basis
of his caste. 7
A letter was sent to Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting that he take serious action against
his fellow judges. Even after the Supreme Court barred him from handling any administrative or
judicial work, Justice Karnan filed several suo moto cases against his fellow judges who voted
for his transfer.
JUDGMENT:
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel representing the State of West Bengal, as well as
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. [Link], learned
senior counsel representing the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Mr.
Rupinder Singh Suri, Senior Advocate, in his capacity as President of the Supreme Court Bar
Association, appeared before the Bench. 8
On the merits, we believe that Sri Justice C.S. Karnan has acted in contempt of the judiciary. His
actions amount to egregious contempt of this Court and the judiciary.
Court has found him guilty of contempt and has sentenced him accordingly. We are satisfied to
punish him by imprisoning him for six months. As a result, the contemnor is prohibited from
performing any administrative or judicial functions.
The six-month sentence imposed by this Court on Sri Justice C.S. Karnan shall be carried out
immediately by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or a team formed by him. 5.
Because the incident of contempt includes the contemnor's public statements and publication of
orders, which were highlighted by the electronic and print media, the court believes that no
further statements made by him should be published in the future.9
CONCLUSION:
The concept of contempt of court has been invoked numerous times by the judiciary in order to
protect the authority and respect of the courts. It is important to understand the importance of the
judiciary in the public domain, and undermining it will only lead to disaster, it has been observed
from the above case that Justice Karnan in spite of being at such a high and respective position
7
Kashyap, H., & Rathore, P. (2021). Law of Contempt: Prevention of Scandalisation of Court or a Scandal to Curb
Free Speech?. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 2958
88
[Link]
9
[Link] [Link]/2021/03/[Link]
8
where not only citizen of the country, professionals from legal system lookup towards him as he
is learned judge, however, his actions have questioned the dignity of the system several times
and his action himself shown that he has least respect towards his colleagues.
Freedom of expression is not to be restricted in any way. As a result, the judiciary must ensure
that contempt power is used with care and caution where it is necessary.
CASE4: Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India 2 SSC 584 (1998)
FACTS:
An Advocate Vinay Chandra Mishra was found guilty in a court of interfering with the
administration of justice by threatening, intimidating, and overpowering the court with insulting,
disrespectful, and threatening words.10
Due to his misdeeds, he was undergoing court trials for contempt of court, which revealed that
his actions were criminal in nature.
The court decided to invoke the power granted to the defendant Vinay Chandra Mishra under
Articles 129 and 142 of the Indian Constitution for his conduct, suspending him from his practice
as an advocate and sentencing him to life imprisonment.11
JUDGMENT:
Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, states that in the case of established
contempt, the contemner may be punished with simple imprisonment by detention in a civil
prison; (ii) fine; or (iii) both. After reading sub-section (2) of section 12 (2), the Act restricts the
court from imposing an excessive sentence and instead prescribes a sentence in sub-section (2) of
section 12 of the constitution.
An advocate's license will be suspended and he will be removed from the state only if he violates
the Advocate Act of 1961.
The judgment also reveals that suspending any license to practice any professional duty, such as
a lawyer, chartered accountant, doctor, and so on, when a such professional is found guilty of
contempt of court, for any specific period of time prescribed by law, is not a recognized or
10
Bollampally, D. R. (2021). Article 142-Is the Judiciary Overstepping Its Limits to Do" Complete Justice"?. Issue
2 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 1171
11
[Link]
%20guilty%20of%20professional%20misconduct.
9
accepted the punishment that a court of record, either under common law or under statutory law,
can impose on a defendant.
The supreme court has the authority to punish for misconduct or contempt of court, but they have
no authority to suspend an advocate's license under any law. The power to complete justice under
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution is a corrective action that gives power or preference to
equity over the law, but it cannot be used to deprive any professional lawyer of the due process
contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 by suspending a lawyer's license to practice his duty in
court while dealing with the contempt case.12
The court's decision made it clear that the supreme court has the authority to punish but not
suspend any professional worker from performing his or her duties. The Supreme Court Bar
Association won the case, and advocate Vinay Chandra Mishra's suspended license was
reinstated, and he resumed his legal practice.
CONCLUSION:
The supreme court suspended the license of a practicing attorney for contempt of court in this
case.
The court's decision is that the supreme court has no authority to suspend the license of any
professional working in any contempt. Suspension of the license has another way to conduct by
their own Acts under the professions.
CASE 5: A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2011 SC 308]
FACT:
In this case, the Coimbatore Bar Association passed a resolution stating that no member of the
Coimbatore Bar will defend the accused cop in the criminal case. This appears to be a case
against police officers for assaulting a lawyer during one of the numerous clashes between the
police and the bar.13
JUDGMENT:
The resolutions are completely illegal, going against all bar traditions and professional ethics.
Every person, no matter how evil or repulsive he may be regarded by society, has the right to be
defended in a court of law, and it is the lawyer's duty to defend him.
12
[Link]
13
: Sarda, M. (2012). Bar Association and Professional Ethics: A Study In the Light of Supreme Court's Decision In
AS Mohammed Rafi's Case, Air 2011 SC 308. All India Law Digest, 9.
10
The advocate was informed that he would lose his job if he accepted the brief. He agreed before
ultimately being let go from his position.14
If a client is willing to pay his fee and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged, professional ethics
mandates that he cannot turn down a brief. 15Therefore, it is against all constitutional standards
for any bar association to enact a resolution stating that none of its members will represent a
specific accused, regardless of whether that accused is a police officer, a suspected terrorist, or a
rapist. All of these Bar Association of India resolutions were deemed to be void and ineffective,
and it was advised that lawyers disregard and reject them in order to protect the rule of law. 16
CONCLUSION:
It has been determined that the Indian Constitution and the laws enacted by the Indian Bar
Council require attorneys to represent clients and not turn down briefs. No one who has been
arrested may be held without first learning the reason for their arrest, and they are guaranteed the
right to confer with and be represented by a lawyer of their choosing.
According to the regulations established by the Indian Bar Council, an advocate is required to
accept any brief in Courts or tribunals before any other authorities in which he wishes to practice
for a fee commensurate with his standing at the bar and the nature of the matter.
Reference:
1. Talukdar, S., & Singh, P. (2021). Critical Analysis of the Prashant Bhusan Contempt Case and
Its Impact on India's Democracy. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 2147.
2. [Link]
3. Kashyap, H., & Rathore, P. (2021). Law of Contempt: Prevention of Scandalisation of Court
or a Scandal to Curb Free Speech?. Issue 3 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 2958.
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
6.[Link]
2019/11742/11742_2019_32_1501_21869_Judgement_27-[Link]
14
[Link]
15
[Link]
vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/21208613
16
[Link]
11
7. Jain, D. (2021). A Descriptive Study on the Contempt of Court in India with Reference to
Case Studies. Supremo Amicus, 23, 409.
8. [Link]
9. [Link]
[Link], D. R. (2021). Article 142-Is the Judiciary Overstepping Its Limits to Do"
Complete Justice"?. Issue 2 Int'l JL Mgmt. & Human., 4, 1171
11.[Link]
%20Shri%20Mishra,those%20guilty%20of%20professional%20misconduct.
12. [Link]
13. Case 5: Sarda, M. (2012). Bar Association and Professional Ethics: A Study In the Light of
Supreme Court's Decision In AS Mohammed Rafi's Case, Air 2011 SC 308. All India Law
Digest, 9.
14. [Link]
15. [Link]
as-mohammad-rafi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu/21208613
16.[Link]
%[Link]
12
i
