Gujarat High Court slaps contempt notice on lawyer who asked whether HC, State follow Supreme Court verdicts

The Gujarat High Court recently issued a contempt of court notice against an advocate after finding that his statements in court and in written pleadings amounted to attacks on the judiciary [Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v. State of Gujarat & Ors].

Justice MR Mengdey noted that Advocate Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, who appeared in person in a case raising concerns over police inaction related to construction near Surat Airport, was targeting courts after failing to secure favourable orders in earlier rounds of litigation.

Recording the exchange during the hearing, the Court observed,

“When this Court countered the petitioner Party-in-Person as to whether he was making allegations against the Court, he reaffirmed that he was stating merely the facts which were emerging from record...From the aforesaid it appears that a disgruntled litigant after having failed to obtain favourable orders from the institution is out to defame the august institution. By making the averments in the petition as well as the remarks made by the petitioner during the course of hearing before this court are made with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large.”

The High Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on Bhamburkar and directed that permission to argue his case in person be reconsidered.

It said that Bhamburkar's conduct amounted to contempt of court as he attempted to undermine the authority of judicial institutions. It directed him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be started against him.

“This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing short of contempt of Court of not only this court but also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well of the learned trial court,” said the Court.

The matter arose from allegations that builders near Surat Airport had secured no-objection certificates from the Airports Authority of India by giving wrong location details and then carried out construction at other sites.

Bhamburkar repeatedly asked the police to register a first information report (FIR), relying on a Supreme Court ruling that makes FIRs mandatory in cognisable offences.

Police authorities had earlier declined to register a case, stating that no criminal offence was disclosed. Bhamburkar then moved the High Court in 2021, which directed him to approach a magistrate. That order was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Following those directions, Bhamburkar approached a magistrate and sought a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate declined to order a probe, but decided to treat the matter as a private complaint and conduct an inquiry instead.

Rather than taking part in that process, Bhamburkar went back to the High Court, challenging the magistrate’s order and even seeking action against the judicial officer.

Rejecting the petition at the outset, the High Court said,

“At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present petition is a classic example of the petition which is thoroughly misconceived and an abuse of process of law.”

The Court looked at affidavits filed by the Airports Authority of India and noted that although some construction violations were found, there was no evidence to show that forged documents had been used to obtain approvals.

Responding to Bhamburkar's argument that the magistrate had no power to convert his application into a complaint, the Court clarified that criminal procedure allows such a course.

“This contention raised by the petitioner demonstrates the complete lack of legal knowledge on the part of the petitioner Party-in-Person,” stated the Court.

The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave along with Additional Public Prosecutor HK Patel.

[Read Order]