Madras High Court sets aside District Judge order against lawyer who used unparliamentary words during virtual hearing

The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a lawyer against whom a Principal District and Sessions Judge had passed an order after the lawyer was found guilty of using unparliamentary language during virtual court proceedings (G Samwell Rajendran v. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi). .After considering the circumstances of the case, the explanation submitted by the lawyer and his apology for the error, Justice R Tharani of the High Court opined that some leniency should be shown in the case and allowed the revision plea moved by the advocate..The incident took place during a bail hearing last June via WhatsApp call before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. .Advocate Samwell Rajendran was stated to have uttered unparliamentary words while the call was still connected for the hearing, which was witnessed by the Public Prosecutor, the stenographer, the protocol officer and the system analyst. .The judge had issued a show-cause notice over his conduct. On finding the lawyer's reply unsatisfactory, the judge had proceeded to impose a fine of Rs 200 under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (intentional insult, causing interruption to any public servant during the course of judicial proceedings). The judge added that if the lawyer were to default on this payment of fine, he would be liable to undergo one-month simple imprisonment. .Though the lawyer paid the fine, the District Judge had also referred the matter to the Bar Council prompting Rajendran to move the High Court for relief..He told the High Court that he was not given a personal hearing before the order against him was passed. He submitted that the Judge may have misunderstood his reply owing to a typographical error where he had typed "it would not occur in due course” instead of “this would not happen in future.” .He explained that he had attended the virtual court from his car, which was parked near the court. After his arguments were complete, someone had driven his vehicle rashly and negligently, causing scratches to his car and triggering him, "in the spark of the moment," to abuse the driver. .He added that the words uttered were not against the court, intended as an insult to the court or intended to disrupt court proceedings. He pleaded for leniency, given that he was not accustomed to using technology to appear in court at the time, and given his unblemished record of 30 years as a practicing advocate. ."When court proceedings is going on usage of unparliamentary words by the appellant while addressing a Court cannot be brushed aside", the High Court observed. .All the same, the Court granted the lawyer relief upon appreciating the facts of the incident. Justice Tharani said, ."... considering the nature of the occurrence and considering the introduction of virtual Court functioning and considering the fact that the petitioner extended apology, some leniency has to be shown. Hence, accepting apology the order...is set aside. The fine amount paid is directed to be refunded to the petitioner.".[Read order]