RAKESH  TIWARI, ADVOCATE  vs ALOK PANDEY C.J.M.

BENCH- JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA, JUSTICE NAVIN MISHRA

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The appellant here, who is a lawyer was accused of contempt of court. On 21 December 2012, the lawyer entered the room of the C.J.M along with 2-3 colleagues and started abusing him during the lunch hour. Not only did the appellant entered the C.J.M’s room without permission, but he also started abusing, threatening him of future consequence and also raised his hands upon the C.J.M. The Allahabad High Court convicted him for simple imprisonment of six months along with a fine of Rs. 2000. The Court further prohibited him to not enter the premises of the District Judgeship of Allahabad for the next six months. In case of non- payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. The appellant was put under observation for a period of two years and in case of further disturbance, the District Judge will report the matter to the High Court. The petition is filed by the accused advocate who stated that he has seen the C.J.M. along the accused of his client’s case and also denied the facts that he abused the judge. The High Court, on the other hand, have found the advocate along with 2-3 junior advocates entered and misbehaved with the CJM in his chamber.

ISSUE –

Is the behavior of the Bar to this extent, causing damage to the reputation of the Judiciary?

JUDGMENT-

The Apex Court was disappointed seeing the unapologetic nature of the advocate and thus suspended the judgment of the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months to a further period of 3 years subject to his proper conduct. The Court also observed that-

“A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was adding insult to injury, because the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees, which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalising the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice; such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service; it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice. From that point of view, the conduct of the appellant was highly reprehensible.

In the instant case the advocate has acted contrary to the obligations. He has set a bad example before others while destroying the dignity of the court and the Judge. The action has the effect of weakening of confidence of
the people in courts. The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The Judge has to deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner. He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling abuses. Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless preachers so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy.”

Additional three years of observation was levied on him along with the previous judgment commencing from 1.7.2019- 30.6.2022

Read Judgment here:

[embeddoc url=”https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/24348_2015_Judgement_10-May-2019.pdf” download=”all”]