LexO.P. SHARMA & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 301 O.P. SHARMA & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1108-1115 of 2004) MAY 9, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: A B ss. 2(c) and 12(1) proviso, Explanation - Criminal C contempt of Court - Advocates abusing the Judicial Magistrate in filthy language and threatening him with dire consequences - Matter referred to High Court - Newspaper publishing the incident - Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by High Court against the advocates and the owner, D publisher and Editor of newspaper - Unconditional apology tendered by contemnors before High Court - On High Court's directions contemnors appearing before Judicial Magistrate concerned and tendering unconditional apology - Conviction . by High Court of all the contemnors and sentence of six E months/three months with fine - HELD: The material on record shows that the advocates hurled abuses in filthy , language and threatened' the Judicial Magistrate with dire consequences - The contemnors have tendered unconditional apology before the Judicial Magistrate, the High F Court and this Court as well - They have given undertaking that they would maintain good behaviour in future - In this view of the matter, the unconditional apology tendered in the form of affidavits in terms of s. 12(1) is accepted and all contemnors are discharged - However, acceptance of an G apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule - Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 - Advocates - Professional ethics. 301 H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A Bar Council of India Rules, 1975: Section I, Chapter II, Part IV - Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette - Advocates - Duty to the court - Advocates hurling abuses in filthy language and threatening Judicial Magistrate with dire consequences - HELD: B Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression - But the advocates and the party appearing in person equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in court proceedings - Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with license C to make unfounded a/legations against any institution much less the judiciary- A deliberate attempt to scandalize the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the name of the judiciary -Advocates - Professional ethics - o Advocates' Role and Ethical Standards. Administration of Justice: Professional conduct - Integrity and sanctity of an institution which bestowed upon itself the responsibility of E dispensing justice has to be maintained - All the functionaries, be it advocates, judges and rest of the staff ought to act in accordance with morals and ethics. On 11.9.1999, when the Judicial Magistrate made an order remanding the accused, represented by one of the 1• appellants-advocates, the advocate became enraged and started hurling abuses and derogatory remarks against the Judicial Magistrate concerned and threatened him with dire consequences. He also called other 15-20 advocates and all of them joined together and shouted G slogans and abuses in filthy language against the Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him. The Judicial Magistrate wrote a letter to the District and Sessions Judge on 14.9.1999. This was followed by another letter dated 24.9.1999 stating therein that two of the appellants- H advocates had criminal record and had been indulging O.P. SHARMA & ORS. v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 303 & HARYANA in pre$SUre tactics since long. The incident was A published in a local newspaper which necessitated action ,under the Act against the owner, publisher, printer and Editor of the newspaper. Based on th,e letters of the District and Sessions Judge, the High Court, suo motu, initiated contempt proceedings against the appellants- B contemnors. The contemnors filed separate affidavits stating the circumstances in which the incident occurred and regretted for the same and tendered unconditional apology. On the direction of the High Court, all the contemnors also appeared before the Judicial Magistrate c concerned, expressed their regret and also tendered unconditional apology. However, the High Court, taking note of seriousness of the issue, and finding that the reference made by the Magistrate was based upon corr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.