Summary
An advocate’s abuse, threats and attempted assault against a judicial officer over judicial orders constituted criminal contempt. Regulating the advocate’s appearance or access to courts to protect proceedings was distinguished from suspending his professional licence. Conviction was upheld, but imprisonment was conditionally suspended for three further years, coupled with exclusion from the Allahabad District Judgeship and the fine direction.
Issues
- Whether the conduct constituted criminal contempt.
- Whether court-access restrictions were permissible and how the sentence should operate.
Held
- An advocate must protect judicial dignity and pursue grievances through lawful superior authorities rather than threaten or abuse a judge. The established conduct undermined administration of justice and constituted criminal contempt. (¶¶ 5–8, 15–16)
- A restriction on appearance to maintain orderly proceedings and protect the court was distinct from professional-licence suspension. The cited authorities supported protective court restrictions following contempt. (¶ 11–14)
- The conviction stood, but six months’ imprisonment was suspended subject to good conduct and further exclusion from the District Judgeship, with activation by the Supreme Court possible on breach. (¶ 16)
Result
Conviction upheld; six-month imprisonment suspended for three further years subject to good conduct and no entry to Allahabad District Judgeship from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2022, additional to time already undergone. Sentence to remit on compliance; Supreme Court could activate it on breach. ₹2,000 fine maintained; non-payment attracted three months’ exclusion from the premises. Appeal disposed of; no costs.