The Karnataka High Court recently found an advocate guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to a simple imprisonment of one day (till the rising of court) for disrupting court proceedings and appearing inebriated before a magistrate in 2022 [High Court of Karnataka v Pankaj Kaushik].

In the judgment delivered on September 11, a division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T also imposed a cost of ₹2,000 on advocate Pankaj Kaushik for his misconduct.

The Court observed the advocate lacked genuine remorse and tried to justify his actions while continuing to make scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against the judiciary.

"His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct. We are of the clear opinion that if conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole," the Court said.

In 2022, the High Court initiated suo motu proceedings against the advocate on the basis of communications received from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar.

Kaushik had twice disrupted proceedings before an Additional Civil Judge-Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at the Karwar District and Sessions Court in April 2022.

According to the communications, Kaushik was appearing as a party-in-person in a domestic violence case filed against him by his wife.

In the first incident, Kaushik is stated to have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and yelled at him for not hearing his case. Although the case was not listed that day, he allegedly yelled at the bench clerk for not calling out his case.

He also accused the judge of taking bribes from his wife to pass orders in her favour in the domestic violence case. The advocate allegedly also made defamatory statements against High Court judges.

The incident was recorded in a letter dated April 8, 2022, sent by the District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka.

Three days later, Kaushik submitted an apology letter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, expressing regret and requesting that the complaint against him be withdrawn.

However, on April 22, 2022, the advocate again interrupted court proceedings and cut in while a senior counsel was arguing a case. He allegedly used a disrespectful tone and told the senior counsel to stop arguing so that his case could be taken up.

Even after the judge intervened, the advocate allegedly continued to yell at everyone.

He was then taken to the Civil Hospital, Karwar, where he was found to be inebriated. A Certificate of Drunkenness was subsequently issued by the hospital.

A second letter recording the incident was sent to the High Court by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

These communications led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Kaushik.

In response to the contempt proceedings, Kaushik denied that he was intoxicated on the first date of the incident. He argued that the certificate was obtained on a later date.

He claimed the contempt proceedings were initiated to harass him. He also said that he was suffering from epilepsy and occasionally had strokes and fits.

The Court, after examining the evidence, ruled that charges against the advocate were proved. It said that he was not able to place any defence to explain his conduct.

The very demeanor and tone of the accused are clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such, it said.

"He has committed aggravated contempt in the face of the Court by scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against Judicial Officers as well as the Judges of the Court. The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such," the Court added.

High Court Government Pleader Thejesh P appeared for the High Court of Karnataka.

The accused advocate appeared as a party-in-person.

[Read Order]