P R ADIKESAVAN versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 23-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
P R ADIKESAVAN
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2022)
MAY 23, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 2(c)(iii), 12(1) – Conviction
under – Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant
– The Single Judge of the High Court issued a non-bailable warrant
and sought the presence of the appellant – When a team of the
police tried to execute the warrant, the appellant and other
advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing
the order – High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the
appellant – Division Bench of the High Court found that the
appellant is guilty of contempt and sentenced him to undergo two
weeks of simple imprisonment and fine – The appellant was also
barred from practising as an Advocate in the High Court for one
year – On appeal, held: The behaviour and conduct of the
appellant, who is a member of the Bar has been thoroughly
contemptuous – There was a clear attempt to obstruct the process
of justice when the non-bailable warrant was sought to be served –
Wanton allegations were levelled against the Single Judge of the
Madras High Court who issued the non-bailable warrant – Five
adjournments were sought by the appellant before the High Court,
just to delay the conclusion of the proceedings – The appellant has
no respect for the administration of justice – The finding of contempt,
as well as the sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate.
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC
106 : [2009] 11 SCR 1026 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 11 SCR 1026                   relied on                         Para 8
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 779
779
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
847 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Suo Motu Crl. Contempt Petition No. 866 of
2021.
K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Vinay Rajput, Advs. for the
Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant under
Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act
1971 and sentencing him two weeks of simple imprisonment.
2. Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under
the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12
March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-
bailable warrant seeking the presence of the appellant  on 26 March
2021. On 31 March 2021, when a team of the police tried to execute the
warrant, the appellant and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and
prevented them from executing the order. The Deputy Commissioner of
Police brought the incident to the notice of the Registrar General of the
Madras High Court by a letter dated 13 April 2021. On perusing the
video clippings of the incident the Single Judge of the Madras High Court
by an order dated 14 July 2021, initiated contempt proceedings against
the appellant under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. The
order of the Single judge is extracted below:
“4.
This Court has also seen the entire footage starting from the
time the Police informed the respondent about the orders of
this Court and thereafter, how the respondent and one of his
Advocate friend had started questioning the Police Personnel
and the respondent has not paid heed to the Inspector of
Police’s statement that he is only executing the orders of
this Court. The Police report would also state that the
respondent’s counsel Mr. Balasubramaniam had arrived and
he also started abusing the Police. The video footage shows
his presence. Thereafter, the scene has totally turned ugly
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
and in one footage, I saw two Advocates trying to pull out a
Police Officer using abusive and unparliamentary words. The
entire scene is enacted on the public road just outside the
Court premises in full public view. This is nothing but
obstructing the administration of Justice. The act becomes
all the more contumacious as the respondent and the others
who are members of the noble profession have committed
this act. They are bound to respect not only the dignity of
this Court but also the orders of this Court.
5.
The respondent who was fully aware of the pendency of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.