RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE versus ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE
v.
ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2015)
MAY 10, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – High Court found that the
appellant-advocate along with 2-3 junior advocates entered the
chamber of the CJM and misbehaved as well as attempted to assault
him – Appellant was convicted for his undesirable conduct by the
High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act – Appellant was
sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of 15 days – Appellant was further
directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship for six
months and to remain under a constant watch of the District Judge
for a period of two years – On appeal, held: Advocate in question
acted contrary to the obligations – He has set a bad example before
others while destroying the dignity of the Court and the Judge –
Considering the nature of misconduct, while upholding the
conviction for criminal contempt, the sentence of the appellant
modified: (i) the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months suspended
for a further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and
proper conduct with a condition that appellant not to enter the
premises of the District Judgeship for further period of 3 years in
addition to what already undergone – In case of non-violation of
aforesaid condition the sentence after 3 years to be remitted (ii)
However, sentence of imprisonment to be activated, in case of breach
of any condition by the concerned advocate during the period of
three years – (iii) Appellant to deposit Rs.2000 as imposed by the
High Court and in case of failure to deposit the said amount,
appellant directed not to enter the premises of District Judgeship
for a period of three months.
Professional Ethics – Advocates – Held: The role of a lawyer
is indispensable in the justice delivery system – He has to follow the
professional ethics and also to maintain high standards – He has to
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 893
893
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
assist the court and also defend the interest of his client – He has to
give due regard to his opponent and also to his counsel – What may
be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as
he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as a member
of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly
higher – Advocates are held in high esteem in the society – The
dignity of court is in fact dignity of the system of which an advocate
being officer of the court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the advocate has acted
contrary to the obligations. He has set a bad example before others
while destroying the dignity of the court and the Judge. The action
has the effect of weakening of confidence of the people in courts.
The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is
essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The
Judge has to deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner.
He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling
abuses. Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless
preachers so as to preserve the independence of the
judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy.
[Para 15] [903-E-G]
2. The act stated amounts to criminal contempt of court.
The High Court has noted that the concerned advocate did not
apologise and has maligned and scandalised the subordinate court.
He has made bare denial and has not shown any remorse for his
misconduct. Considering the gravamen of the allegations the High
Court has imposed the imprisonment of SI for 6 months with fine
of Rs.2000 and in default to pay fine or to undergo SI for 15 days.
He has been restrained from entering the judgeship of Allahabad
for a period of 6 months that was to commence from 15.7.2015
and he had been kept under watch for a period of 2 years.
Considering the nature of misconduct, while upholding the
conviction for criminal contempt, his sentence is modified in the
following manner :
1. The sentence of imprisonment of 6 months shall remain
suspended for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining
good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
895
the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further
period of three years in addition to what he has undergon

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