Allahabad High Court imposes ₹25k costs on Gram Pradhan who threatened lawyer with SC/ST case

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a Gram Pradhan (village chief) who spoke to a lawyer in a derogatory manner and threatened to implicate him in a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [Bano Bibi vs State of UP and 4 Others].

Justice JJ Munir observed that a litigant abusing a counsel was a serious matter bordering on criminal contempt. However, the Court decided against initiating a contempt of court case against the man who had threatened the lawyer.

“We did spare a thought of referring this matter to the criminal contempt Bench, forwarding the sixth respondent to that Bench, to be dealt with in accordance with law. But, given his unconditional remorse, we eschew that course and, instead, think that ends of justice would be met by administering him a severe warning to be careful in future and imposing upon him costs of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- will be paid to Mr. Waseem Akhtar, learned Counsel representing the petitioner before the Tehsil and Rs. 15,000/- deposited in account of the State Legal Services Authority,” it said.

The single-judge added that members of the Bar virtually “work like soldiers in times of peace” to secure justice for citizens but are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse or even matters beyond their control, while they work under a very strained judicial system.

The Court was dealing with a land encroachment case when it was informed by the petitioner’s side that advocate Waseem Akhtar, who is practising in Prayagraj's Phoolpur, was being extended death threats by the Gram Pradhan of Village Bahadurpur Kachhar Hetapatti.

In particular, he had been threatened with false implication in a SC/ST case with a remark that  it would make him forget all his skills in advocacy. Akhtar also happened to be the son-in-law of the petitioner.

Taking a serious view of the allegation, the Court had earlier summoned  Jang Bahadur, the Gram Pradhan. He later told the Court he would not indulge in such acts in future.

However, after reading the transcript of the recorded phone call between Bahadur and Akhtar, the Court found that the former had not only been aggressive towards the lawyer but had also spoken derogatorily about the legal profession.

Speaking in derogatory terms about the legal profession does not affect the profession alone but the entire judicature of which the Bar is an integral part, the Court said.

The Court also highlighted the pressure under which lawyers function.

“There are not hundreds but thousands of remarks by courts of justice reminding members of the legal profession about their duties towards the litigants, the Court and their adversaries, virtually admonishing them, but very little has been thought about the strain under which the most important part of the judicature, that is to say, the Bar, functions in order to secure justice for the litigants.”

In this backdrop, the Court imposed costs on the Gram Pradhan and listed the matter for a fresh hearing.

Advocates Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]