Calcutta HC pulls up advocate for using slang against judge, asks him to apologise

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday expressed strong displeasure over an advocate allegedly using an objectionable slang during a hearing before a single judge after a plea in which he appeared was rejected [In Re : Firdous Samim].

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee held that such conduct by a member of the Bar could not be treated lightly. It expressed concern over the reputational damage caused to the institution by the incident.

“Our High Court advocate. It is going all over India, that your High Court, you have these sort of advocates and you people keep silent and don't take any remedial measure,” the Bench observed today.

The matter was tied to a hearing from July. The lawyer, Firdous Samim, was accused of using scandalous and unparliamentary language during a hearing on July 23.

In a July 30 order, the High Court took suo motu cognisance of the incident and issued notice to Samim to show cause why criminal contempt of court proceedings should not be drawn up against him.

"The language used by the said advocate during Court hearing which was being streamed live is an act of misdemeanour and reflects an audacious and contemptuous attitude of the said advocate towards this Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench, in flagrant violation of the Hon’ble Court’s decorum and discipline," observed the Court.

The matter was heard today, when the Court observed that Samim was an advocate and not a layperson.

“An advocate consciously appears, a prayer is refused and he ends the conversation by using that slang,” added the Court.

It also noted that Samim himself was now unwilling to repeat in open court the slang allegedly used by him in July, while at the same time offering an apology for it.

“A thing which you cannot utter in any court, how can you seek pardon for that? A thing which you are so ashamed to utter this in court, how can you seek pardon?” said the Court.

The Court also rejected a suggestion that the slang was not directed against the judge. The Bench added that the use of the slang may even be interpreted by some as being a comment against all judges of the Court.

“(It was) certainly addressed to the judge. You hear the comment, not only against the judge, I will not be surprised if the interpretation is against all the judges of this court,” the Bench observed.

The Court acknowledged that advocates work under considerable pressure and may sometimes lose their temper. However, even that would not excuse such lapses in decorum, it opined.

“Maybe enough workload is there. A person cannot sometimes keep in mind, but this is not expected,” it said.

The Court held that any disagreement with a judge should be expressed through proper channels rather than through intemperate remarks.

“You are handling so much of pressure, thus on the basis of the pressure, you might sometimes lose your temper. It is automatic. You may become irritated. You can go outside the court and discuss with your friend this issue, that I made the submission, maybe this lordship was not in a position,” added the Court.

It proceeded to reject a plea for the incident to be treated merely as a lapse of temper.

“That is a mere statement. No, not a mere statement. After you use a slang, you come to court and say 'I will not do it henceforth'. And what punishment do you expect?” asked the Court.

The Court also referred to the standards of advocacy expected from lawyers.

“Basic training in law, that we cannot say that your lordship is wrong. We have to say that your lordship may give a second thought... That is advocacy,” it noted.

The Court held it could not allow such conduct to become an example for other advocates.

“Then another person will come and stand, if I refuse the order, he will use a slang and go away. What we can do? We are helpless. We are thinking of our fraternity. Had he been a layman, we could have understood. He's having a practise. He has also appeared before us,” held the Court.

The Court further questioned whether an unconditional apology alone would be sufficient.

“In the annals of history, that an advocate making an intentional conscious statement as regards the judges of this court is allowed to go scot-free on the basis of an, what should I say, 'I am very sorry, I will not repeat it in future.' We could have understood that sort of an undertaking coming from a reasonable person. This is sheer unreasonableness,” it said.

The Court ultimately directed that Samim should approach the single judge concerned and tender an apology, along with a written undertaking that he would not repeat such conduct.

The Court said it would then consider whether to proceed with the contempt case after the apology and undertaking were placed before it.

Senior Advocate Jayanta Mitra appeared for Samim in today's hearing.