Allahabad HC calls for contempt case against advocate who alleged judge was working under government pressure
The Allahabad High Court recently called for the initiation of contempt proceedings against a lawyer who told a judge that he seemed to be working under government pressure [Kunal v State of UP].
Justice Santosh Rai passed the order against Advocate Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, who was representing an accused in a bail matter, when he made the controversial remark.
Mishra is alleged to have made the following remarks before the judge on February 12:
“Why are you calling for a counter affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer who, till date, has not recorded the statement of the injured. You (Judge) have no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer. It appears that you are working under the pressure of the government.”
The Court said Mishra's tone, body language and the manner in which the statements were made were highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory, and tended to lower the Court's authority and dignity in the eyes of those present before it.
It added that Mishra made scandalous remarks challenging the authority of the Court and disrupted the proceedings, as a result of which the proceedings remained stalled for about ten minutes.
"The conduct of Sri Mishra clearly indicates an intention to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings. Such behaviour, prima facie, falls within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it amounts to scandalising the Court and interfering with the administration of justice," the Bench said.
Thus, the Court opined that the matter requires consideration for initiation of contempt proceedings against Mishra.
It, thus, ordered that a separate reference be made for the initiation of contempt proceedings against Mishra under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the relevant rules of the High Court.
"However, it is deemed appropriate to place the issue before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for taking suitable action, in accordance with law," the Court said.
In the bail plea, Mishra had earlier argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case and that the investigating officer failed to record the statement of the injured victim, who sustained a firearm injury on his chest.
A government counsel conceded that though the case was registered on January 19, the statement of the victim had yet to be recorded.
The Court then directed the State to file a counter affidavit along with the medical report and statement of the injured as well as the doctor, within three weeks.
The matter was ordered to be listed on March 10. However, considering counsel Mishra's remarks after the dictation of this order, Justice Rai recused himself from the matter.
"Office is directed to put up this matter, as fresh, at the earliest, before another Bench after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice," the order said.