M. Y. SHAREEF AND ANOTHER versus THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 15-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
757 
M. Y. SHAREEF AND ANOTHER 
ti. 
THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT 
' 
OF NAGPUR AND OTHERS. 
-
t 
1 
... 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., S. R. DAs, 
GHULAM 
HASAN, 
BHAGWATI and 
JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J 
Contempt of Court-Advocate signing application or pleading 
which scandalizes the Court-Advocate's obligations to the Courts and 
duty to the client-Plea of justification or in the alternative apology 
:_When permissible. 
A section of the Bar seems to be labouring under an erroneous 
impression that when an advocate is acting in the interests of his 
client or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his 
legitimate duty towards him even when he signs an application or 
3. pleading which contains matter scandalizing the Court and that 
when there is conflict between his obligations to the Court and his 
duty to the client, the later prevails. 
ft should be widely made known that an advocate who signs 
an application or pleading containing matter scandalizing the Court 
which tends to prevent or delay the course 
of justice is 
himself 
guilty of contempt of Court unless he reasonably satisfies himself 
about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor and 
that it is no duty of an advocate to his client to take any interest 
in such applications ; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his 
client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such 
applications. 
It is well-settled that in a matter relating to the contempt of 
Court there cannot be both justification and an apology. 
The two 
things are incompatible. An apology is not a weapon of defence to 
purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as a 
universal panacea but it is intended to be evidence of real contri-
teness. 
In border line cases where a question of principle about the 
rights of an advocate and his duties has to be settled an alternative 
plea merits consideration, for it is possible for a judge who hears 
the case to hold that there is no contempt in which case a defence 
of unqualified apology is meaningless, because that would amount 
to the admission of the commission of an offence. 
Every form of defence in a contempt case cannot be regarded 
as an act of contumacy. 
It depends on the circumstances of each 
case and on the general impression about a particular rule of ethics 
amongst the members of the profession. 
1954. 
M. r. s,,.,.,ef 
and An•ther 
T, 
Thi Htm'.lt 
Judges ef the 
High C1111t ef 
Nagpur. 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 72 of 1952. 
Appeal by Special Leave 
from the Judgment and 
Order 
dated the 30th 
November, 1950, of the High 
Court of 
Judicature at 
Nagpur (Dev and Rao JJ.) in 
Contempt of Court 
Proceedings Miscellaneous Petition 
No. 16 of 1950. 
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, 
(Hardyal 
Hardy, B. R. 
Mandlekar, B. D. Kathalay, Ganpat 
Rai and K. 
L. 
Arora, with him) for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-G"11eral for India ( T. P. 
Naik and I. N. Shroff, with him) for respondent No. l. 
T. L. Shevde, Advocate-General 
for 
the 
State of 
Madhya Pradesh, (T. P. Naik and I. N. Shroff, 
with 
him) for respondent No. 2. 
B. Sen and /. N. Shroff for respondent No. 3. 
1954. October 15. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-This appeal by special 
leave arises out of contempt proceedings taken against 
two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one 
of their clients. 
Shri Shareef, one of the appellants, at 
one time was 
Minister for Law and Justice in the State. 
Dr. Kathalay, the 
second appellant, 1s a Doctor of 
Laws and an author of legal works. The matter 
which 
resulted in the issue of the show cause notices for con-
tempt took a protracted 
course and has to a certain 
extent resulted in embittered feelings. 
What happened 
was this: 
Shri Zikar who was charged along with the two 
appellants for 
contempt made an 
application 
under 
article 226 ( 1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his 
fundamental right, 
alleging that he was a citizen of 
Bharat, and that the Custodian of Evacuee 
Property 
and the police were taking wrongful .~ction against him 
and treating ·him as a national of Pakistan which he 
never was. He prayed for an interim order of prohibi-
tion against the 
State from 
deporting him after the 
expiry of the permit. The 
High Court granted the 
interim order of prohibition against the 
action com-
plained. At
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.