LexSUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.5 OF 2017 IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 8 S.C.R. 764 SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) No.5 OF 2017 IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE AUGUST 17,2017 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.[ Contempt of Court - Misconduct by Advocate-on-Record - Contemnor-Advocate-on-Record made mentioning before the Court in an extremely agitated and aggressive manner - He alleged that Registry of Supreme Court of India colluded with the opposite litigant C to hastily list the matter with the aim of Bench hunting and sought to produce a letter written by him to the Chief Justice regarding the same issue - Held: The contemnor has been practicing as an Advocate-on-Record since 2009 - He has been representing prestigious institutions, State Government and is obviously quite D familiar with the practices of this Court - He cannot be said to be oblivious to the fact that no Bench is constituted by the Registry, but by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court - Thus, in an indirect manner, an imputation was impliedly made even against the Chief Justice though in the garb of a virulent attack on the Registry - The E F averments in the letter in question were palpably false - There was no change in the Bench nor case had been placed before the Special Bench, as alleged - Insofar listing is concerned, if inadvertently the matter was deleted Ji-om the Advance List but had re-appeared in the list, it was not surprising in view of the last order - It was not a case where an Advocate-on-Record was expressing some difficulty in seeking to make representation of the case on account of being unaware of the listing - Further, the records of the case show that the original writ petition was filed through another Advocate-on- Record, but contemnor appeared on the first date of hearing and thereafter three other Advocate-on-Records succeeded him - Subsequently, petitioner again engaged the contemnor who came G into picture on the anvil of mentioning the matter - It is clear that the prior Advocate-on-Record refused to oblige the litigant petitioner for making unreasonable mentioning before the Court - It is the contemnor who utilized the opportunity to re-enter the scene, with the object of assisting the petitioner, in the endeavour of bench H hunting, under the garb of allegations and insinuations, made 764 IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE 765 against the Registry - The contemnor thus took a conscious A decision to be a pawn in the hands of the litigant, to scandalize the Court and the Registry - The conduct was unbecoming of an advocate much less an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court - Thus, contemnor not permitted to practice as an Advocate-on- Record, for period of one month - Advocates - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - r.10, Or.IV - Bar Council Of lndia Rules - s.I of Chapter II. Part-VI. B Advocate - Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette - Discussed. HELD: 1. The contemnor is an Advocate-on-Record c practicing in that capacity since the year 2009 - not a novice in the field. He has been representing prestigious institutions, State Government and Authorities and is obviously quite familiar with the practices of this Court. He cannot be said to be oblivious to the fact that no Bench is constituted by the Registry, but by the Chief Justice of this Court. Thus, in an indirect manner, an D imputation was impliedly made even against the Chief Justice though in the garb of a virulent attack on the Registry. !Para 41 [771-A-B) 2. The averments in the letter were palpably false as on 31.3.2017, specific directions had been issued for the matter to E be listed on 7.4.2017, "to be heard finally." Thus, if inadvertently the matter was deleted from the Advance List but had re-appeared in the list, nobody could have been taken by surprise in view of the last order. It was not also a case where an Advocate-on-Record was expressing some difficulty in seeking to make a F representation of the case on account of being unaware of the listing, in which case, a request would be made before the concerned bench for some accommodation. [Para 6) (771-D-EJ 3. The order produced in the Court dated 31.3.2017 incidentally was passed by the same bench before which the matter G was listed on 7.4.2017, and thus, there was no change even in the bench, nor had the case been placed before a special bench. It was listed before the regular bench. It was not listed before .any special bench. T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.