The Supreme Court in the case observed and has expressed its dissatisfaction over the nature of the apology tendered by the lawyer who had been held in custody for his objectionable remarks which are made against the Trial Court and High Court Judges during one of his pleadings.
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud referred to the apology filed by the lawyer wherein it is stated that he says I am saying this in bonafide mistake. Thus, this is not an apology…how can he say that it was unintentional and bonafide towards the whole judiciary.
The bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case observed and has directed that the petitioner (lawyer) be given another opportunity to make a ‘contrite expression of apology.’
The bench was unhappy with the contents of the apology as filed in the affidavit.
Further, the court noted that the submissions made by the counsel, Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, who appeared during the hearing and contended that the petitioner has made unfounded and reckless allegations made against him in his capacity as Additional Public Prosecutor as also against Mr Kanhaiya Singhal, the counsel who was appearing for the Delhi High Court.
The bench directed the petitioner to deal with the above aspect as well in his apology.
The Division bench of Delhi High Court in an order dated January 9 observed and has held that the petitioner-lawyer to be guilty of criminal contempt and awarded him the punishment of 6 months with a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default to undergo 7 days of imprisonment.
The said issue arose when the petitioner, a 60-year-old lawyer, made caustic remarks against the trial judge in the pleadings in an appeal filed against the conviction in a criminal case. Although the High Court warned him, he said that he was standing by the remarks.
On the previous hearing, the counsel, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija submitted before the court that the lawyer has been sentenced to prison and after the senior counsel said that the petitioner is now feeling remorseful, the bench directed the contemnor to tender an unconditional apology before the judges of the High Court and District Judiciary against whom he had made such allegations.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on January 19.