Browbeating junior counsel impermissible: Delhi HC dismisses contempt plea against junior counsel with costs

Stating that browbeating junior counsel was impermissible, the Delhi High Court has dismissed with costs a contempt petition against a junior counsel for an alleged non-compliance of orders passed by the Court..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh..The Petitioner had filed a contempt petition seeking compliance of certain orders passed by the Court in September and December, 2019..In the said contempt petition, the Petitioner had chosen to make a junior counsel who appeared on behalf of one Mrs. Sushma Ravidas as one of the contemnors..The primary issue in the main petition was in respect of the legality and validity of the alleged Powers of Attorney in favour of one Sudarshan Kumar on behalf of Mrs. Sushma Ravidas..Before Court, the Petitioner clarified that the junior counsel was to be arrayed as a contemnor no. 1 only in the event the Court opined that the onus for the compliance of its orders was on the shoulders of the advocate and not the client..The Petitioner further stated that the junior counsel was arrayed because as many as 5 emails were sent to her regarding the issue of compliance..However, she did “not even bother to reply to any of these 5 emails” and at one occasion “had the audacity to inform the counsel appearing for the applicant that there is no intention whatsoever” to file the original powers-of-attorney since there was no such order to this effect from the Court..After perusing the contempt case, the Court opined that the issue of legality and validity of Powers of Attorneys had to be adjudicated in the main case..The Court thus opined that making allegations against a junior counsel was "completely uncalled for and in bad taste"..The same would in effect result in `browbeating’ junior counsel which is impermissible.. levelling allegations and writing of repeated e-mails, in a manner so as to create a threat to junior counsel cannot be permitted.Delhi High Court.The Court stated that the question as to whether there was compliance of the earlier orders was to be adjudicated by the Court.It added that the remedy for alleged non-compliance of orders was to approach the Court rather than to address e-mails to the counsel for the opposing side and make allegations against them..Discouraging usage of language such as “audacity of the counsel”, the Court observed,.“Such language crosses the boundaries of legal pleadings especially against counsels who act in their professional capacity.”Delhi High Court.In view of the above, the contempt was dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the junior counsel by the Petitioner in the contempt petition..The Petitioner was represented by Advocates Neelima Tripathi, Mansi Sharma. The Respondent was represented by Advocate Deepak Khosla..Read the Order: