Courtroom 1 of Gauhati High Court was privy to high drama on April 8 where Advocate General (AG) Devajit Saikia’s contempt of court petitions against two lawyers and the High Court Bar Association President (GHCBA) Kamal Nayan Choudhury were listed for hearing.

The controversy stemmed from the proposal to shift the High Court from its existing location and comments made last month by two lawyers, Advocate Pallavi Talukdar and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, to the media against a sitting High Court judge – Justice Suman Shyam.

On March 24, the GHCBA held a protest to oppose the move to transfer the High Court from the present place. The comments by the lawyers had been made then. Subsequently, Saikia resigned from GHCBA in support of the move to shift the High Court.

On April 7, Saikia as the Assam AG and in his personal capacity filed two contempt of court petitions against the three lawyers, demanding "iron hand" against the "present situation". The matter was listed on Tuesday before the Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair which reserved its order in the case. 

AG Saikia said that Talukdar in her media interview had claimed that vested interests within the judiciary were behind shifting of the High Court to north Guwahati and called “a particular judge” “chika” (rat) or house shrew.

The Court was also told that Talukdar had alleged that the judge was “managing” the registry in respect of listing the cases.

As per Saikia, Talukdar had also said that “Hitlerism politics” was going on in the court.

“The words spoken by contemnor number 1 is an act which has scandalized, prejudiced, interfered and tends to obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings of court and the administration of justice and accordingly it amounts to criminal contempt,” AG Saikia told the Court.

"The statements made by the lady advocate is not personal attack on Justice Suman Shyam. She has attacked Suman Shyam as a judge of the Hon'ble Court. Justice Suman Shyam was attending some meeting with the government, accompanying lordship (Chief Justice), that was put to question. She has also given him a very derogatory title ... I should say but which I don't want to repeat," he added.

With regard to Choudhury, Saikia said that he had not directly made any contemptuous remarks but Talukdar had made comment in "consent and connivance" with the HCBA President. He also said that Choudhury had not condemned the statements made by Talukdar from the platform of HCBA.

On comments made by Bhattacharya, Saikia said his statements were “very dangerous” and aimed at undermining the Court, judges and the registry. 

“The respondent-contemnor 1, a designated senior counsel, was not only heard and seen making statements in the said news channel programme [but] circulating video clips on social media … declared that he has positive evidence of Justice ... and he behaves like a CID. In his statement, he further states ‘why all the time Justice … has to be friendly with the Chief Justice. What is the reason?’ On being further asked by the reporter as to what evidence he has to support the allegations, the respondent-contemnor 1 commented that due to the presence of a large number of ladies, he was refraining from giving further comments; otherwise, he would have replied very badly. He went ahead by stating that all the allegations are not required to be proved by citing evidence,” Saikia told the Court. 

He added that Bhattacharya had questioned Justice Shyam’s presence in a meeting with Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who had recently reviewed "the master plan of the newly constructed Gauhati High Court Rangmahal, Kamrup," in the presence of Chief Justice Bishnoy and senior officials.

“This is an institutional attack. This is not an attack on Justice Suman Shyam as an individual. He is challenging the system … This is a very serious matter. I had to take it and there is nothing personal here,” AG Saikia told the Court on Tuesday.

When Choudhury began his arguments, the Court at the outset asked him whether it should hear him even before issuance of notice.

The senior counsel responded that the Court would have to first see whether the Advocate General could have filed the plea and then only consider the issuance of notice.

Choudhury added that AG Saikia had filed the contempt petitions out of personal animosity.

“Everywhere he is saying that three advocates are responsible (for opposition to shifting of High Court), when the decision is of the Bar,” he further said.

He also questioned how he can be blamed for the statements made by the other two lawyers.

“When things are done having regard to personal animus, certainly lordships will not give credence,” Choudhury submitted.

However, the Court again asked him to address the question of giving him a pre-notice audience. Choudhury said no notice can be issued to him since the case against him lacks any foundation. He also cited judgments in support of his arguments. 

“There is no scope for an Advocate General to argue the case. His duty is to write a letter and your lordships will take note of it and then register a case. It is unheard of for an Advocate General standing before the Court and arguing a motion for himself,” Choudhury said in a conclusion.

The Court then reserved its decision on issuance of notice. Interestingly, on the same day, the Chief Justice issued an order directing that no cases of AG Saika be listed before Justice Shyam.

“Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct that the case(s), wherein Mr. Devajit Saikia, Learned Senior Advocate is engaged as Counsel, are not to be listed before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suman Shyam, Judge, Gauhati High Court. This notification will come into force with immediate effect,” the Registrar (Judicial) said in a notification on April 8.

Pertinently, the High Court on April 3 had issued a press release to address the protests by the Bar members. Interestingly, the press release was made public by the Chief Minister’s Office on X (Twitter).

“Misinformation being spread in the public arena on the subject of shifting of the Gauhati High Court from the present location and scandalous aspersions being leveled against the constitutional functionaries attached to the Gauhati High Court by a section of the members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association, which have the effect of lowering the Public faith in the Institution of Judiciary as a whole and create doubts in the mind of the public as regards the independence of the Judiciary have necessitated the issuance of the present,” the High Court said in the press release issued through the High Court Registrar General.

[Read Press Release]

It was also stated that the Full Court in 2023 had approved the proposal for establishment of a judicial township at Rangmahal, North Guwahati and requested the State government to expedite the process of allotment of land for it. However, it was clarified that the decision to shift the High Court had not yet been taken. 

“Notwithstanding the same, some members of the Bar Associations have made deliberate, incorrect and misleading statements before the Media projecting that the Hon'ble Chief Justice and a particular sitting Judge of this Court, by secretly meeting the Hon'ble Chief Minister, have unilaterally taken a decision to shift the High Court without consulting the Bar, which is far from the truth. It is to clarify that any decision for acquiring land for future expansion of the Judiciary lies exclusively within the domain of the High Court in discharge of its administrative functions and no prior consent/consultation with any person or agency or Association, including the Bar Association, is mandated in such matters. The Bar is to be consulted only as regards the facilities to be provided to the members of the Bar Association and the litigants,” the High Court said.

The High Court administration also said Justice Shyam was part of the meeting since he is Chairman of the Building Committee as well as the Chairman of the Information and Communication Technology Committee.

Further, the Court condemned the personal attacks made against Justice Shyam. “These statements so made have the effect of tarnishing the image of the constitutional functionaries connected with the Gauhati High Court. Such statements lower the dignity, majesty and image of the Judiciary in the eyes of the people and raises doubts in the minds of the people as regards the independence and impartiality of the institution.”

Pertinently, GHCBA had distanced itself from the comments made by its members on its platform. However, the High Court in its press release said,

“It was expected that the Gauhati High Court Bar Association would have condemned such remarks and taken due action against such members. However, nothing was done.”

With contempt petitions, the matter is now before the High Court on the judicial side.