The Bombay High Court in the case observed and has held that an advocate who signs an application or pleading with scandalous remarks against the Court which being without reasonable grounds to create an artificial situation so that the matter was recused by a judge may be liable for a contempt action.
The court in the case issued the contempt notice against the client of two lawyers.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice NR Borkar in the case observed that in conflict between a lawyer’s obligations to the Court and his duty to the client, what prevails first is his obligation to the Court. The court stated that it is the duty of an advocates to advise their clients to refrain from making allegations of such nature.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgement in the case M.Y. Shareef & Another Versus The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Others.
In the present case, the division bench was dealing with the praecipe (application to circulate the matter) filed through Advocate Zoheb Merchant, junior of Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani on behalf of their client or respondent one Bhisham Hiralal Pahuja. Thus, enclosed with the precipice was a newspaper article casting aspersions on Justice Sambre.
The court observed that the article alleged that Justice Sambre is biased towards the petitioner in the case and will grant him bail to maintain relations with him.
Furtehr, it has been stated that the complaint has been filed against Justice Sambre with the Chief Justice of India.
The court observed that that the conduct of both lawyers was scandalizing the Courts and creating an artificial situation so that the matter was not taken up, thus, the Court recorded that the lawyers had tendered an unconditional apology.
The court also took the strong exception to the conduct of the lawyers wherein the court observed that when it was enquired with the Registry as to who has submitted the praecipe, it was informed that both these lawyers have submitted the praecipe and that time the Registry had advised them to refrain from doing so and after some time both these lawyers came back and insisted the Registry to accept the praecipe.
It has also been directed by the court that the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissioner of Police to ensure service of contempt notice on respondent Bhisham Pahuja and to submit details of the newspaper ‘Rajdharma’ which published the scandalous article.
The court also relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case that the lawyers cannot hide behind client instructions when they sign pleadings that scandalize the court. The court stated that it will consider whether the unconditional apologies tendered by the lawyers are bonafide.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the judges of the Bench are expected to decide the disputes brought before them free from any personal bias or prejudice. Thus, the perception that by scandalizing the Courts and the Judges they can secure a order of recusal. This court is of the view that the lawyers and the litigants who exhibit such behaviour are required to be dealt with an iron hand by taking stern action. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on January 12, 2024.
