The Supreme Court in the case Mohan Chandra P. vs State of Karnataka observed and has issued notice to the Petitioner and the Advocate-on-Record on a petition filled which contained observations and remarks against a High Court judgment which were highly contemptuous in nature.
The bench comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice B. V. Nagarathna observed while citing the Constitution Bench judgment in the case M. Y. Shareef and Anr. vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors., wherein seeking a response from the Petitioner and the Advocate-on-Record as to why an action for the contempt of Court should have not been initiated against them.
The bench observed while referring to the above precedent observed that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures for such derogatory and contemptuous averments is being guilty for committing the contempt of Court.
It has been observed that the apex court noted that the averments made in the SLP by the Petitioners are “not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but is also highly contemptuous in nature.” Thus, the bench on the next date of hearing i.e., on the 02.12.2022 sought the presence of the both the Petitioner Mohan Chandra P and the AOR Advocate Vipin Kumar Jai.
The court also observed the judgement of the case M. Y. Shareef, wherein the court held that any advocate who signs an application or a plea containing matter that scandalizes the Court or in some way tends to hinder or delaying the course of justice without satisfying himself of the existence of prima facie adequate grounds is himself who being guilty of contempt of court.
In the present case, the Supreme Court was considering an SLP filed assailing judgment of the High Court of Karnataka wherein the High Court had dismissed a challenge to the selection of the Chief Information Commissioner and of the Information Commissioners by the State of Karnataka.
However, 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 present matter. Thus. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellant which had to be deposited by him with the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru.
Further, the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court averred that the decision was given by High Court for showing favouritism to the Respondents and to harass the petitioner and gaining publicity. Thus, he also alleged that the High Court had imposed the exemplary cost of Rs. 5,00,000 for ulterior purpose.
The post Supreme Court: Lawyer Signing Petitions With Derogatory Remarks Is Guilty For Contempt Of Court appeared first on The Daily Guardian.
