1994 JTR(SC) 994
1995 AIR(SC) 454 ; 1994 AIR(SCW) 4679 ; 1994 CriLR 804 ; 1995 CriLR(Cal) 289 ; 1994 3 Crimes(SC) 618 ; 1995 1 EastCrC(SC) 29 ; 1994 6 JT 584 ; 1994 4 Scale 444 ; 1994 Supp3 SCC 509 ; 1994 Supp4 SCR 191 ; 1995 1 UJ 8 ; 1995 KHC 1358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
K. A. Mohammed Ali, Appellant
Versus
C.N. Prasannan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 678 of 1991 with 140 of 1992
Decided on 4-10-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. E. M. S. Anam, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. G. Vishwanathan Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Mr. M. K.D. Namboodri and Mr. R. Sasiprabhu, Advocates with him, for Respondent.
Lawyers are created for the courts, and the court has plenary powers under the Constitution to admonish for misconduct.
Act Referred :CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : S.2(c)
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, S.2(c) provides the definition for contempt of court in the context of this case where a learned advocate was convicted for conduct amounting to contempt before a learned Magistrate. The provisions of the Act apply to conduct that scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any court, or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding, which is directly relevant to the allegations of raising voice in a disruptive manner and using derogatory language against the Magistrate during trial. The Act endows courts with plenary powers to punish such contempt and to ensure respect for judicial authority and the dignity of the court.
(B) Key legal principles include that advocates owe a duty of respect and obedience to the court, courts are for the lawyers to practice and not vice versa, and judicial decorum must be maintained at all times. Courts have the discretion to impose appropriate punishment and also to remit fines in the interest of justice when genuine remorse is shown belatedly.
Facts of the case:
An advocate was conducting a trial before a learned Magistrate when he allegedly raised his voice unusually high and used derogatory language, causing annoyance to the Magistrate. Subsequently, certain posters were published and a demonstration was staged, which came to the notice of the High Court, leading to action against the advocate.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts findings on the facts were accepted. The court observed that the advocate should have ceased the unruly behaviour immediately upon warning and maintained proper decorum. While an apology was tendered later, it was not accepted due to the belated nature, though the court acknowledged the remorse and exercised its plenary powers under the Constitution.
Issues:
Whether the advocates conduct constituted contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act? Whether the punishment, including fines, was appropriate? Whether the apology warranted mitigation or setting aside of the fine?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the advocates conduct was contemptuous and warranted punishment, the apology, though belated, showed remorse, leading to the remission of the fine while upholding the need for immediate compliance with court authority and respect for judicial process.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the fine imposed in the criminal appeal is set aside, and the other sums directed to the Legal Aid Board are upheld. The contempt proceedings are deemed resolved.
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, S.2(c) provides the definition for contempt of court in the context of this case where a learned advocate was convicted for conduct amounting to contempt before a learned Magistrate. The provisions of the Act apply to conduct that scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any court, or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding, which is directly relevant to the allegations of raising voice in a disruptive manner and using derogatory language against the Magistrate during trial. The Act endows courts with plenary powers to punish such contempt and to ensure respect for judicial authority and the dignity of the court.
(B) Key legal principles include that advocates owe a duty of respect and obedience to the court, courts are for the lawyers to practice and not vice versa, and judicial decorum must be maintained at all times. Courts have the discretion to impose appropriate punishment and also to remit fines in the interest of justice when genuine remorse is shown belatedly.
Facts of the case:
An advocate was conducting a trial before a learned Magistrate when he allegedly raised his voice unusually high and used derogatory language, causing annoyance to the Magistrate. Subsequently, certain posters were published and a demonstration was staged, which came to the notice of the High Court, leading to action against the advocate.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts findings on the facts were accepted. The court observed that the advocate should have ceased the unruly behaviour immediately upon warning and maintained proper decorum. While an apology was tendered later, it was not accepted due to the belated nature, though the court acknowledged the remorse and exercised its plenary powers under the Constitution.
Issues:
Whether the advocates conduct constituted contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act? Whether the punishment, including fines, was appropriate? Whether the apology warranted mitigation or setting aside of the fine?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the advocates conduct was contemptuous and warranted punishment, the apology, though belated, showed remorse, leading to the remission of the fine while upholding the need for immediate compliance with court authority and respect for judicial process.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the fine imposed in the criminal appeal is set aside, and the other sums directed to the Legal Aid Board are upheld. The contempt proceedings are deemed resolved.
E.M.S.ANAM, G.VISHVANATHA IYER, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, R.SASIPRABHU, S.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGMENT
These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed the contempt of the court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was conducting a trial for an accused person. Amongst others, one of the charges against the appellant was that he had at a certain juncture raised the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the learned Magistrate, and besides, had used derogatory language against him. After the incident, the appellant got published and circulated certain posters and caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court whereupon action was taken against the appellant.
2. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court and have heard learned counsel. We have no reason to disbelieve the learned Magistrate on the actual happenings, even though effort has been made by Mr.Anam, learned counsel for the appellant to question the same. We are of the view that when the appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour, he should have stopped and gone in tune with the learned Magistrate and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. It should be borne in mind by one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the lawyers. The happy combination, whenever an aberration occurs, should in immediacy be restored and put to an even knee. Mr. Anam with all his sincerity has expressed before us that the appellants in apologetic for his misbehaviour. We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at this belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct under our plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby. Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant need not pay the imposed fine of Rs.2000/- in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1991. However, the sums of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- which have been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board under orders under challenge in the respective two appeals are meant for a good cause and those orders we do not upset. This course should set everything at rest. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 454