Madhya Pradesh High Court seeks explanation from lawyer for practising despite contempt conviction

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently asked an advocate to explain how he was practicing the law before it despite his conviction in a criminal contempt case in April 2024 [Munendra Singh v The State of Madhya Pradesh].

According to Rule 16 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012, an advocate who has been found guilty of criminal contempt cannot appear, act, or plead before the High Court or any subordinate court in the district where the contempt was committed unless the same has been purged.

Justice Milin Ramesh Phadke recently found that Advocate Awdesh Singh Bhadauria was appearing before the Gwalior Bench of the High Court despite a 2024 ruling finding him guilty in a suo motu criminal contempt case over allegations that he sought ₹60,000 in the name of a High Court judge.

The Court was hearing the bail plea of an accused in a case of rash and negligent driving. A constable was severely injured by the accused after he signaled the vehicle driver to stop.

Advocate Bhadauria was representing the petitioner. 

After examining the merits of the case, the Court declined to grant bail to the accused.

Pertinently, while parting with the matter, the Court expressed serious concern about the conduct of Advocate Bhadauria, including his appearance on behalf of the accused despite a subsisting contempt of court conviction.

The Bench observed that the lawyer's conviction by the High Court in the criminal contempt case was upheld by the Supreme Court, even if the costs imposed on him were reduced.

“There is no material on record to indicate that Shri Bhadauria has undertaken any steps to purge himself of the contempt. Mere modification of the fine by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not amount to exoneration nor does it constitute purgation under the law,” the Court added.

During the bail plea, Bhadauria repeatedly attempted to divert the proceedings, raised matters already concluded by judicial orders, and made insinuatory and provocative remarks, the judge further recorded in the order.

“His submissions were argumentative beyond permissible limits and bordered on defiance of judicial discipline. He attempted to introduce personal vindication, challenge settled findings, and focus on extraneous matters rather than the merits of the application,” the Court noted.

The Bench also said that Bhadauria’s tone, tenor and manner of submissions reflected a deliberate attempt to intimidate and influence the Court, rather than to responsibly argue the merits of the case.

His submissions exhibited a lack of restraint, decorum, and adherence to the ethical standards expected of an officer of the Court, the judge said.

“The Court notes that advocacy carries with it not merely the right to argue zealously on behalf of a client, but also a concomitant duty to uphold the dignity, authority, and decorum of the judicial process. In this instance, the conduct of Shri Bhadauria fell short of these responsibilities,” Justice Phadke observed.

Considering the subsisting conviction for criminal contempt and Bhadauria's conduct during the hearing, the Court directed that a show-cause notice be issued to him to explain under what authority he was or is appearing, acting, and pleading before the High Court in the absence of compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012.

The Court also sought the State Bar Council's response in the matter.

“The Office is further directed to issue notice to the State Bar Council to inform this Court of the steps taken, if any, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2024, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and if not taken, action would be taken as may be warranted in accordance with law,” the Court ordered.

The matter is listed for further consideration on April 6. The Court ordered that its order be sent to the Chief Justice for information and to the State Bar Council for compliance. 

[Read Order]