Lawyer course

Lawyer who signs petitions with derogatory remarks in contempt of court: Supreme Court

LAGATAR24 NETWORK

New Delhi, November 12: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a Notice to Petitioner and Registered Solicitor on Plea containing remarks and submissions against a High Court Judgment which were of a highly derogatory nature, LiveLaw.in reports.

A bench made up of Judge BR Gavai and Judge BV Nagarathna citing the Constitution Bench judgment of MY Shareef and Anr. vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors., demanded a response from the petitioner and the registered attorney as to why a contempt action should not be taken against them.

“Even a lawyer who affixes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous assertions is guilty of being in contempt of court”the bench observed referring to the precedent above.

The Supreme Court noted that the assertions made in the SLP by the petitioners are “not only disparaging to the High Court of Karnataka, but also highly contemptuous in nature.” The bench requested the attendance of Claimant Mohan Chandra P and AOR Attorney Vipin Kumar Jai, at the next court date i.e. 2nd December.

The Court had, in the MY Shareef judgment, held that any lawyer who signs a request or a pleading containing elements which scandalize the Court or tends in one way or another to hinder or delay the course of justice without ascertaining the existence of sufficient prima facie grounds is himself guilty of contempt of court.

The highest court in the land was considering an SLP filed against a Karnataka High Court judgment in which the High Court dismissed a challenge to the selection of the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners from Karnataka.

The High Court dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the appellant had not approached the High Court with clean hands and was also guilty of concealment of material facts in the case. The High Court had therefore, while dismissing the appeal, also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellant which he had to file with the Bar Association, Bengaluru.

In the application for special leave to the Supreme Court, the petitioner claimed that the High Court issued the decision showing favoritism towards the defendants and to harass the petitioner and gain publicity. He also alleged that the High Court imposed the exemplary cost of Rs. 5,00,000 for further purposes.