R.K. GARG, ADVOCATE versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 22-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
536 
R.K. GARG, ADVOCATE 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
April 22, 1981 
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C. ], AND A.P. SEN, J.) 
Contempt of Courts A.ct 1971, Ss.2, 15 and 19-Adilocate appearing in case--
Throwing shoe at presiding Judge-Guilty of contempt of Court-Punished with 
imprisonment and fine. 
Legal Profession-Professional ethics and cultured conduct-Results of viola-
tion of. 
The appellant a practising Advocate appeared for the petitioner in a petition 
under the Rent Act. When the case was called out for hearing, the Judge noticed 
that the petitioner had not paid the process fee, as a result of which the summons 
could not be issued to the respondent. The Judge, proceeded to dismiss the 
petition under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Taking umbrage 
at the dismissal of the petition the appellant hurled his shoe at the Judge which 
hit him on the shoulder. The Judge intending to proceed under Section 228 of 
the Penal Code issued a warrant of arrest against '.the appellant. The appellant 
evaded the warrant and successfully managed to prevent proceedings being taken 
by the Judge for the contempt of his Court. The Judge thereupon made a refe-
rence to the High Court under Section '15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971. 
Before the High Court the appellant did not dispute that he hurled a shoe 
at the Judge. He explained his conduct by saying that he acted under an irresis-
tible impulse generated by the provocative language used by the Judge. The 
High Court being satisfied, that the appellant was making a false allegation that 
the Judge had used abusive language against him and that he had given an un-
true version of the very genesis of the incident, held the appellant guilty of con-
temptf of Court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and a 
fine of Rs. 200/-. 
In the appeal to this Court it was pleaded that the appellant evidently lost 
his balance and whether or not there was any justification for it, he acted under 
the impulse of grave passion for which he had been sufficiently punished by the 
publicity which the incident had received and the notoriety which he had invited 
for himself and as the appellant was genuinely repentent for his conduct he 
should be enlarged on a mere admonition. 
Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD : 1. (i) The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months is redu-
ced to a period of one month and the fine for Rs. 200 /- is enhanced to Rs. 1000/-. 
__ .....,..--
R.K. GARG V. HIMACHAL .PRADESH 
537 
The fine if recovered shall be paid over to the Legal Aid Society functioning in 
A 
the State. [540 GJ 
(ii) The appellant is guilty of conduct which is highly unbecoming of a 
practising lawyer. He hurled his shoe at the Judge in order to overawe him and 
to bully him into accepting his submission that the case should not be dismissed 
under Order IX Rule 2 C.P.C.. The appellant did his best or worst to see that 
the petition was not dismissed for non-payment of process fee and finding that 
8 
the Judge was not willing to accept his argument, he took out his shoe in 
show of his physical prowess. [540 C] 
(iii) The appellant's behaviour is condemned. It is most reprehensible 
remembering that, as a practising lawyer he is an officer of the Court. [540 D] 
(iv) A long sentence of imprisonment is not imposed on the appellant since 
be has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court and to the trial Judge. 
The appellant is deeply regretful and genuinely contrite. He has suffered enough 
in mind and reputation and no greater purpose is going to be served by subject-
ing him to a long bodily suffering. [540 E, F] 
2. (i) The argument or the appellant's counsel in the High Court that : 
"better part of discretion is to ignore it instead of fanning it. It is a tuss~l bet-
we tn legal profession and judiciary", is as much to be regretted as the conduct of 
the appellant before the trial Judge. [541A-B] 
(ii) The Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the mechanism, which 
administers justice to the people. A discourteous Judge is like an ill-tuned 
instrument in the setting of a Court room. But Members of the Bar will do well 
to remember that flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct 
will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no demo-
cracy can survive. [541 E, Fl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Appeal No. 19 
of 1981. 
From the judgment and order dated the 17t

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