The Delhi High Court has recently issued criminal contempt of court notice to advocate Ravi Kumar and his clients after they alleged that the single-judge had ‘dishonestly’ passed an order against them.
The division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad issued noticed while dealing with the two appeals filed by the lawyer and his client against the order of the single judge.
When the case was dealt by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar pointed out that the appeals state that the judge has ‘dishonestly’ made an effort to favor the respondents.
Therefore, the Court examined the petitions & observed that it was unfortunate that such types of allegations were made against the judge.
The Court underlined that these statements amount to contempt.
However, the bench stated in its order, “Let notice of contempt be issued to the petitioner and the counsel for making such type of reckless allegations against the learned single-judge which brings down the majesty of the court.”
The counsel then requested the Court to record his submission regarding some rules in its order. The bench also added that it will first consider his reply to the contempt notice.
As the arguments got over, the counsel again said that the single judge decided the matter dishonestly and that as per the Supreme Court’s order, the use of the word ‘dishonest’ does not amount to contempt.
Senior Advocates Parag Tripathi & Jayant Mehta appeared before the court in another case and said that the incident was unfortunate.
Justice Prasad responded that “He looked like a suicide bomber who decided that I will take the system head-on.”
Senior Advocate Tripathi said the judges should educate lawyers on how to maintain their cool.
Chief Justice Sharma remarked that, “You must have seen the way he argues. I am yet to see a more polite and humble person like him. Those people are the sources of inspiration.”
The Court will deal with the criminal contempt matter against the lawyer and his clients on May 29.
