Delhi HC imposes ₹2 lakh costs, registers criminal contempt case against advocate for suppressing facts

The Delhi High Court recently registered suo motu contempt of court proceedings against an advocate for suppression of material facts in a property dispute matter [Harjeet Singh Mendiratta v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr].

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that withholding material facts is a serious matter and cannot be ignored. The Court stated,

“An advocate is under a duty not merely to advance the cause of a client but also to act as an officer of the Court, to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings, to prevent resort to unfair practices and to refrain from fuelling litigation.”

The advocate in question, Kalpana, had a power of attorney of the petitioner, who is her husband. She also represented him in a dispute related to sharing the inheritance of a family property with his sister. In the property dispute, the petitioner’s sister filed a criminal complaint accusing him of causing hurt, wrongful restraint, trespass, criminal intimidation and insulting her modesty. In this backdrop, the man moved the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The Court stated that Advocate Kalpana had a direct personal interest in the outcome of the dispute. 

“The record demonstrates that this dual role has blurred the distinction between an advocate’s professional obligations and her personal interest in the litigation.”

It came to light that the advocate had deliberately suppressed the fact that the same petition seeking quashing criminal proceedings had already been filed before the Court and rejected in 2012. However, there was a false assertion in the present petition that no similar plea was filed previously. The Court also noted that Kalpana had repeatedly deliberately abused the process of court by filing multiple non-maintainable applications in the matter.

In 2025, this Court issued a show cause notice to Kalpana to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her.

In her reply, she claimed that she had made an inadvertent error in not mentioning previous dismissed petition. She stated that there was no deliberate suppression of facts or intention to mislead the Court.

The Court rejected this argument, observing that Kalpana was aware of the entire history of the criminal complaint proceedings and had wilfully suppressed the same.

“In this Court’s opinion, where pleadings are drafted, by the filing advocate, with deliberate suppression of material judicial proceedings known to the advocate, such conduct may have the tendency to interfere with the proper administration of justice by preventing the Court from considering the matter in its correct factual and procedural perspective.”

It stated that such a false declaration of non-filing strikes at the foundation of the administration of justice.

“Deliberately filing a petition containing a false non-filing declaration with knowledge of the earlier proceedings, thereby attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on a fundamentally misleading premise, constitutes conduct having a direct tendency to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.”

The Court also noted that in 2018, the petitioner’s revision petition was rejected by the trial court, which found that the advocate had not disclosed that the same plea had been dismissed earlier. Though the trial court had then taken a lenient view by not initiating contempt of court proceedings against Kalpana, it imposed costs of ₹20,000.

Further, the Court highlighted that Kalpana did not tender an unconditional apology for her conduct. It observed that she did not take responsibility for her actions and did not express any remorse.

Thereby, the Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against her.

It observed that the advocate’s conduct discloses violation of standards of professional conduct under the Bar Council of India Rules and, consequently, directed the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) to examine the same.

It also restricted the advocate from further representing the petitioner in this case as it would “seriously undermine the fairness of the judicial process”.

It imposed costs of ₹2 lakh, of which ₹1 lakh is to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association and the another ₹1 lakh towards the Shaurya Foundation Trust.

Advocates Kajal Chandra, Dalip Singh, Hatneimawi and Suyash Swarup appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates T Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty and A Hussain appeared for the BCD.

Senior Advocates Pawanjit Singh Bindra with Advocates Ashish Garg and Ashmeet Singh appeared for the petitioner’s sister.

Advocate Preet Pal Singh appeared for the BCI.

Amicus Curiae Chand Chopra with Advocate Punishk Handa assisted the court.

Standing counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya with Advocate Abhijeet Kumar appeared for Delhi Police.

[Read judgment]