Madhya Pradesh High Court orders framing of contempt charges against lawyer for comments on judge’s family

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed its Registry to frame contempt of court charges against a lawyer for misbehaving with a judge and making comments about her family members in open court [In Reference vs Shri Madan Singh]..The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the written apology tendered by advocate Madan Singh, while taking into account an earlier case of contempt of court by him.The Court remarked that by the repeated act of alleged contempt, Singh has created a situation where the Court was compelled to “safeguard its majesty from being further damaged” by taking the contempt proceedings to the next stage.“Considering the totality of circumstances where contemnor has allegedly caused repeat act of contempt, once before Judicial Officer of District Judiciary and thereafter before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, acceptance of written apology tendered by contemnor would amount to travesty of justice,” said the Court..Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to frame charges and then grant the lawyer a reasonable opportunity to file his reply. After that, the Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to hold an inquiry by recording statements of the witnesses. “Framing of charges is all the more necessary since the remorse expressed by contemnor is neither genuine nor bona fide. It is merely to escape the rigours of contempt,” the Court remarked.The criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against Singh on the basis of an order passed by a division bench in March 2021 while dealing with criminal appeals in a murder case..After a division bench of Justices Anjuli Palo and BK Shrivastava refused to suspend the sentence of the appellant in that case, Singh had allegedly misbehaved with the bench.He also had particularly made personal comments relating to Justice Palo’s family members particularly her husband Justice (retd.) SK Palo and their daughter Shubhangi Palo Datt, who is a judicial officer.“Mr. Madan Singh, Advocate, who is having experience of more than 20 years of practice as an Advocate, is not expected to behave in such a ridiculous manner with the Judges in the Court and pass personal comments on their family to make unnecessary pressure on the Bench,” the Court had said while initiating contempt of court proceedings against him..In response, Singh had initially justified his conduct. However, he later urged the Court to drop the proceedings against him by tendering an unqualified and unconditional apology. However, the bench headed by Justice Nagu refused to accept the apology and ordered the Registry to frame charges and hold an inquiry to ascertain the veracity and genuineness of the charges.“After recording of statements, the matter be placed before appropriate Bench for rendering findings as regards contemnor’s innocence or guilt,” the Court ordered, while listing the case after 10 weeks..Senior Advocate Anil Khare with advocates Greeshm Jain and Sourabh Singh Thakur represented the contemnor. Advocates Sanjay Singh and Sanjay K Verma represented the State Bar Council..[Read Order]