The Bombay High Court recently discharged a lawyer of contempt of court proceedings initiated against him in 2017 for alleged misconduct during court proceedings..A bench of Justices GS Patel, MS Karnik and Bharati Dangre accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer and discharged the contempt notice. Pertinently, the Court while doing so, observed that courts are "institutions of formality" and stakeholders have to adhere to certain standard of conduct prescribed.The Court added that public faith in administration of justice depends on how justice is seen to be done and that in turn necessitates some standard of conduct to be followed. "Courts are, after all, institutions of a great formality. The administration of justice, and more particularly public faith in the administration of justice, depends not just upon how it is administered, but also on how it is seen to be administered. This requires certain standards of conduct throughout the day," the Bench emphasized. .The Court, however, proceeded to accept the apology of the lawyer, which it found to be bonafide, unconditional and unqualified. "We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself, and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required," the Bench said..The issue before the full bench was a suo motu contempt notice initiated against advocate Mathews Nadumpara for his alleged misconduct during a court hearing in 2017. Nedumpara informed the Court through his counsel that he had apologised to the Court on the very same date of the incident in March 2017.In May 2017, Nedumpara filed an affidavit explaining his conduct. While High Court accepted the apology, it clarified that it was not condoning the conduct at all."The question is how such a momentary lapse should be approached. Courts have available to them the power of punishing for contempt. Should the full brunt of the law and especially the stringency of the law of contempt, be brought to bear on every single occasion? Or should, there be an approach of justice tempered with mercy? ...Our order today is not to be seen or read as condoning that conduct in the slightest," the Bench clarified. .Senior Advocate Shyam Mehta informed the Court that along with an apology, the contemnor has to furnish an undertaking assuring the Court that there will be no repetition of the act. The Court, however, did not deem it necessary."It is not our intention to humiliate anyone; and certainly not by an order of a court. We need no such undertaking to be separately voiced, for the simple reason that this undertaking is part and parcel of the very sanad that allows every advocate to practice law," the Bench said. .The present case was one of the several instances where Nedumpara has been charged under the Contempt of Courts Act. In March 2019, Nedumpara had been suspended from practising for a year by the Supreme Court, after he was found guilty of contempt of court..Mehta appeared along with advocate SR Nargolkar who was amicus curiae in the case.Advocates Subhash Jha and Rohini Amin appeared for Nedumpara.[Read Order]
The Bombay High Court recently discharged a lawyer of contempt of court proceedings initiated against him in 2017 for alleged misconduct during court proceedings..A bench of Justices GS Patel, MS Karnik and Bharati Dangre accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer and discharged the contempt notice. Pertinently, the Court while doing so, observed that courts are "institutions of formality" and stakeholders have to adhere to certain standard of conduct prescribed.The Court added that public faith in administration of justice depends on how justice is seen to be done and that in turn necessitates some standard of conduct to be followed. "Courts are, after all, institutions of a great formality. The administration of justice, and more particularly public faith in the administration of justice, depends not just upon how it is administered, but also on how it is seen to be administered. This requires certain standards of conduct throughout the day," the Bench emphasized. .The Court, however, proceeded to accept the apology of the lawyer, which it found to be bonafide, unconditional and unqualified. "We do so because it is within our power and remit to accept an apology in these terms, and also because we believe that the contempt powers of this Court must be exercised sparingly. Where there is an apology that meets the requirements of the statute itself, and is to the satisfaction of the Court, surely no further action is required," the Bench said..The issue before the full bench was a suo motu contempt notice initiated against advocate Mathews Nadumpara for his alleged misconduct during a court hearing in 2017. Nedumpara informed the Court through his counsel that he had apologised to the Court on the very same date of the incident in March 2017.In May 2017, Nedumpara filed an affidavit explaining his conduct. While High Court accepted the apology, it clarified that it was not condoning the conduct at all."The question is how such a momentary lapse should be approached. Courts have available to them the power of punishing for contempt. Should the full brunt of the law and especially the stringency of the law of contempt, be brought to bear on every single occasion? Or should, there be an approach of justice tempered with mercy? ...Our order today is not to be seen or read as condoning that conduct in the slightest," the Bench clarified. .Senior Advocate Shyam Mehta informed the Court that along with an apology, the contemnor has to furnish an undertaking assuring the Court that there will be no repetition of the act. The Court, however, did not deem it necessary."It is not our intention to humiliate anyone; and certainly not by an order of a court. We need no such undertaking to be separately voiced, for the simple reason that this undertaking is part and parcel of the very sanad that allows every advocate to practice law," the Bench said. .The present case was one of the several instances where Nedumpara has been charged under the Contempt of Courts Act. In March 2019, Nedumpara had been suspended from practising for a year by the Supreme Court, after he was found guilty of contempt of court..Mehta appeared along with advocate SR Nargolkar who was amicus curiae in the case.Advocates Subhash Jha and Rohini Amin appeared for Nedumpara.[Read Order]
