Rajesh Tiwari , Advocate v Alok Pandey , Chief Judicial Magistrate ( 2019) 6 SCC 465

Contempt of Courts Act , 1971.

S.2(a):Contempt of court – Advocate -Held to be proper -Judicial independence and courage to be shown while delivering the justice . [S. 12]

Dismissing the petition  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 .