Summary
In insolvency proceedings against an advocate under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant for his appearance. When police tried to execute it outside the court premises, the advocate and some fifty colleagues surrounded and abused the police and prevented execution, an episode captured on video. A Division Bench, taking cognizance of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, convicted him after he had obtained five adjournments and then filed and withdrew applications to summon the Single Judge as a witness and to seek recusal of a member of the Bench; he was sentenced to two weeks' simple imprisonment, fined Rs 2,000 and barred from practising in the High Court for a year.
Issues
- Whether an advocate who, with a body of other lawyers, prevents the police from executing a non-bailable warrant issued against him by the High Court commits criminal contempt by obstructing the administration of justice.
- Whether a sentence of two weeks' simple imprisonment with a fine and a one-year bar on practising before the High Court is disproportionate, and whether a belated apology should be accepted.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(c)(iii), 12(1), 15 and 19, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Preventing police officials from executing the court's lawful order interfered with and obstructed the administration of justice, constituting criminal contempt; the Single Judge rightly initiated proceedings under Section 15 and the Division Bench rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, whose appeal under Section 19 was dismissed. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 7, 8)
- Issuance of non-bailable warrant in insolvency proceedings, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909Whether the Single Judge was right to issue the warrant was not for the police officer to decide; he was simply required to execute a lawful order, and the appellant could have accompanied the police and sought release from the Judge instead of obstructing them. (¶¶ 2, 5)
Held
- The video footage showed that the police used no force and that it was the battery of lawyers who surrounded and abused them; the appellant, a member of the Bar, deliberately evaded the warrant and was complicit in a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice. His conduct was thoroughly contemptuous. (¶¶ 5, 7)
- The appellant compounded the contempt by levelling wanton allegations against the Single Judge who issued the warrant, seeking recusal of a Judge of the Division Bench on improper grounds, obtaining five adjournments and then filing and withdrawing applications imputing allegations against two Judges; he has no respect for the administration of justice, and the finding and sentence are not disproportionate. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8)
- Debarment from practice for one year is in accordance with R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court; the apology tendered was not accepted. (¶¶ 6, 8)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Madras High Court's judgment of 25.03.2022 in Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 866 of 2021 convicting the appellant of criminal contempt, sentencing him to two weeks' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 and barring him from practising in the High Court for one year, upheld.