The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of an advocate and former army personnel for contempt of court after he repeatedly disobeyed orders and cast aspersions against judges he appeared before [Gulshan Bajwa v. Delhi High Court Registrar and anr].A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PS Narasimha observed,The appellant’s conduct before the High Court and for that matter, even before this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration. The High Court observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant. He has had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him. The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters."However, the Court set the aside the three month civil imprisonment sentence imposed on the contemnor by the Delhi High Court in 2006, considering his age and physical condition.The High Court had convicted the lawyer in October 2006 after initiating multiple suo motu contempt of court proceedings against him.The petitioner, on being granted an adjournment in an earlier case, had allegedly threatened a lady counsel appearing for the other side. He then routinely failed to appear in matters and his pleadings consisted of baseless allegations against judges. Further, he even filed transfer applications seeking constitution of new benches, without his clients' knowledge.After he failed to appear in proceedings asking him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings ought not to be initiated, non-bailable warrants were issued against him.He was eventually set at liberty after furnishing a bail bond, but was taken into custody by the Uttarakhand Police in connection with a non-bailable warrant issued by a family court.The Delhi High Court eventually convicted him for criminal contempt of court, after noting that the magnanimity shown to him has resulted in intentional offences of graver nature. It sentenced him to three months of civil imprisonment.After hearing arguments in the appeal, the Supreme Court noted the long-drawn nature of the contemnor's acts."There are about seven instances which the High Court has taken into account, where the conduct of the appellant came under scrutiny in different proceedings. In all those cases, the egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded," the present bench observed.It found the High Court ruling detailed and well-reasoned, and refused to set aside its order of conviction."The submissions made before us are also not appealing. Even here, the appellant is trying to resort to forum shopping by asking us to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice in a connected matter."The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.The petitioner appeared in-person before the apex court.Advocates Kanhaiya Singhal, Vani Singhal, Ujwal Ghai, Prasanna, Ajay Kumar, Udit Bakshi, Teeksh Singhal, Anmol, Deepali, Chirag M Shroff, Dhananjay Kataria, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Deepak Goel, Gopal Singh Chauhan, Alka Goyal, Jitendra Bharti, Harshita Maheshwari, Archana Preeti Gupta, and Urvashi Sharma appeared for the Delhi High Court and private respondents.
TAGS: Supreme Court Contempt conviction Advocate Ex-army personnel Gulshan Bajwa v. Delhi
