Facts : Sri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate, (Appellant & alleged Contemnor) on 21st December, 2012 without taking permission from C.J. M., Allahabad entered into his chamber along with 2-3 colleagues and at said point of time, he started hurling filthy abuses to the CJM and the matter did not end there, as he also raised his hand to beat the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him of dire consequences. The High Court held that this act on the part of the contemnor constituted criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Act, 1971 and the Appellant, advocate, had been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment under the Contempt of Courts Act and had been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 2000. He had also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15th July, 2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years.

Issue : The main question urged was as to the sentence to be imposed in the case.

View : An advocate is duty bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice delivery system. Advocate has no business to threaten a Judge or hurl abuses for judicial order which he has passed. In case of complaint of the Judge, it was open to the advocate to approach concerned higher authorities but there is no licence to any member of the Bar to indulge in such undignified conduct to lower down the dignity of the Court. Such attempts deserve to be nipped at the earliest as there is no room to such attack by a member of noble profession.

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 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.

Held : Dismissing the Appeal in respect of contempt proceedings against an Advocate, the court held that debarment from entering court premises / debarment from making appearances in addition to or in substitution of imprisonment and fine under the Contempt of Courts Act is held to be valid. Followed Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P (2016) 8 SCC 335. Court also observed that 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 on courts. The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The Judges 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. In view of nature of misconduct, while upholding the conviction for criminal contempt, order of sentence is modified. 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 the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already. (CA No. 1223 of 2015  dt  10.05.2019)

Editorial :  In Het Ram Beniwal and Others v. Raghuveer Singh and Othes with Bhuramal Swami v. Raghuveer Singh and Others AIR 2016 SC 4940, the Court held that  scandalising the Court  and serious and unsubstantiated allegation of corruption and bias against judiciary made by appellants and same published in newspaper is not only derogatory but also have propensity to lower authority of Court  It cannot be termed as fair criticism   .

In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v  State of UP AIR 2011 SC 2275  the Court held that making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse- Apology should come from heart and not from pen.

In C. Elumalai & Ors v. A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 2214  wilful disobedience to any judgement and failure to follow the direction of Supreme Court is liable for contempt . In M. V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala and Another (2015) 4 SCC 81 thee Court held that freedom of Speech/Expression only permits reasoned and temperate criticism of a judgment, not use of abusive and pejorative language against the author judges .

In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Ors. Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 Decided On: 31.08.2020 (SC) the Supreme Court sentenced the contemnor for scandalising the Court  and serious and unsubstantiated allegation of corruption and bias against judiciary made by appellants and same published in newspaper is not only derogatory but also have propensity to lower authority of Court  It cannot be termed as fair criticism with a fine of Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry of this Court by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.