LAGATAR24 NETWORK
New Delhi, Nov. 12: The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Petitioner and the Advocate-on-Record on a plea which contained remarks and observations against a High Court judgment which were highly contemptuous in nature, reports LiveLaw.in.
A bench comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice B. V. Nagarathna citing the Constitution Bench judgment of M. Y. Shareef and Anr. vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors., sought a response from the Petitioner and the Advocate-on-Record as to why an action for contempt of Court should not be initiated against them.
“Even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court”, the bench observed referring to the above precedent.
The apex court noted that the averments made in the SLP by the Petitioners are “not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but also highly contemptuous in nature.” The bench has sought the presence of the both the Petitioner Mohan Chandra P and the AOR Advocate Vipin Kumar Jai, on the next date of hearing i.e., on the 2nd December.
The Court had in the judgment of M. Y. Shareef held that any advocate who signs an application or pleading which contains matter that scandalizes the Court or in someway tends to hinder or delay the course of justice without satisfying himself of the existence of prima facie adequate grounds is himself guilty of contempt of court.
The top court of the country was considering an SLP filed assailing a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka whereby the High Court had dismissed a challenge to the selection of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners by the State of Karnataka.
The High Court dismissed his appeal on the ground that the appellant had not approached the High Court with clean hands and was also guilty of suppression of material facts in the matter. The High Court had thus, while dismissing the appeal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellant which he had to deposit with the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru.
In the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court the petitioner averred that High Court gave the decision showing favouritism to the Respondents and to harass the petitioner and gain publicity. He also alleged that the High Court had imposed the exemplary cost of Rs. 5,00,000 for ulterior purpose.
