The Bombay High Court while issuing Show-Cause Notices to two Advocates has reiterated that an advocate, who signs an application or pleading containing a matter scandalizing the Court to have an order of recusal or such similar order can be held guilty for contempt of Court unless there is a reasonable satisfaction by him about the existence of adequate grounds.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice NR Borkar observed that when there is a conflict between a Lawyer's obligations to the Court and his duty to the client, what prevails first is his obligation to the Court.It is the duty of the advocates to advise their clients to refrain from making allegations of such nature, the court asserted.
Reprimanding the Advocates for signing a praecipe enclosing therewith a newspaper article published in ‘Rajdharma’ casting aspersions on one of sitting Judges by stating that the said Judge would be granting bail to the petitioner in the matter as he knows him, the court noted:
"Both the above-referred lawyers instead of owning their duty towards the Court have got themselves identified with the litigant i.e. respondent no.5 and Advocate Ms. Minal Jaiwant Chandnani, instead of advising her junior colleague to refrain from signing such praecipe, has continued to assert before this Court to take into account the praecipe, the news article being the annexure to the said praecipe."
Though both of the lawyers have tendered an unconditional apology to the Court, it needs to be looked into whether such an apology is a bona fide one, the court added.It thus deferred the hearing of the matter so as to ascertain whether contempt notice should be caused on both these lawyers along with the respondent no.5 and the Publisher and Editor of newspaper ‘Rajdharm'.
Advocate Zoheb Merchant who appeared for respondent no.5 in the present criminal writ petition had signed a praecipe enclosing therewith a newspaper article published in the newspaper ‘Rajdharma’ casting aspersions on one of us (Nitin W. Sambre, J.) which states that the said Judge would be granting bail to the petitioner in the matter. The said news article further reflects that the petitioner is known to the said Judge and the petitioner’s brother has circulated that so as to maintain the relations with the petitioner, the Judge is going to grant the relief. It is further mentioned that against the said Judge a complaint is lodged with the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
The said praecipe which was signed by Advocate Zoheb Merchant states that the matter was heard by the Bench consisting of Nitin W. Sambre, J. and Rajesh S. Patil, J. It is further mentioned that after the change in the sitting list, the Division Bench presided over by Nitin W. Sambre, J. was not available and therefore on 11.10.2023, the matter was mentioned before the Division Bench comprising of Nitin W. Sambre, J. and N.R. Borkar, J. on which date there was an order passed “No orders”. The said praecipe further states that there were rumours which have come to the knowledge of the said lawyer regarding the Court’s integrity and there being allegations of bias and partiality leveled by certain unscrupulous elements of the society which is reflected in the aforesaid newspaper article. As such the said lawyer has stated in the praecipe that the matter may be listed before any other Bench.
TAGS: Bombay HC Duty to Court Contempt Proceedings Lawyers
