Why Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered Bar Council to assess mental state of a lawyer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently sentenced a lawyer to a simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of ₹501 on him for “indecent comments” against two trial court judges and their family members..The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra also referred the 45-year-old lawyer's case to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for assessment of his mental state.“Considering the conduct and behaviour which respondent-contemnor showed before the Court, we refer the case to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh to look into the matter as to whether he is in a fit state of mind to continue with the legal profession as the manner in which he has behaved in the court does not appear to be reasonable.”.The Court observed that an advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client but also an officer of the court who owes duty towards it.There can be nothing more serious than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the people in such administration, the Court remarked.Though the Court opined that the lawyer's mental state was “not so good”, it also said that a wrong message would go to lawyers and litigants if cognizance of such conduct is not taken..Two contempt cases were initiated this year against the lawyer on the references made by two judges in Sagar district.Before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, the lawyer had threatened to set himself ablaze after alleging that the Presiding Officer had failed to ensure the presence of the defendant before it. He had also said that the Presiding Officer was “like a criminal sitting in the chair of a Judge” and after some time he along with his wife and children will become poor and will be sent to jail.Similarly, in an application before Civil Judge Senior Division, he had made personal allegations against the judicial officer and threatened he would send the judge and his family members to jail..In response to the contempt proceedings, the lawyer allegedly made allegations even against the High Court judges. The Court said the language used amounted to scandalising and lowering its authority.“The act becomes all the more contumacious as the respondent who is member of the noble profession has committed this act. He is bound to respect the dignity of the court. The same attracts the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” the Court said..It also noted that when the proceedings were finally taken up, the lawyer was not apologetic for his conduct but “rather in an aggressive manner” said he had already filed the reply and does not want to argue anymore.Observing that the lawyer did not offer any unconditional apology or pray to drop the proceedings against him, the Court said it was left with no other option but to consider the case on merits against him..Concluding that his behaviour and conduct was thoroughly contemptuous, the Court said,“We hold that the respondent has committed contempt of court (i) by making indecent comments on Presiding Officers and their family members as well as other judicial officers, employees etc. and (ii) by filing such a reply before this Court containing contemptuous averments and reckless allegations against the Judges. Therefore, he is held guilty of “criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”.On sentencing, the Court noted that it has a discretion to choose between the sentence of fine and imprisonment. In this regard, the Court opined that it is only where the contumacious act is so reprehensible and outrageous that a sentence of fine would not be commensurate with its gravity, would the Court impose a sentence of imprisonment. “To put it differently a sentence of imprisonment would only be imposed in the "rarest of rare cases",” it explained..In the present case, the Court said that the lawyer concerned had been given several opportunities to improve but instead he made a categorical statement in a “vehement and adamant manner” that he does not have any faith in any of the High Court judges and that the matter be sent to Supreme Court.“This Court has time and again made several efforts to explain him that what is a case against him and what are the allegations made against him but it appears that he is not able to understand what proceedings are being initiated against him. He is unable to gather that what is required to be done in the present case.”.The Court further said that either he was pretending to not understand anything or there was “some mental problem” with him as he was unable to understand the case against him.Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court said imposition of fine and warning would be just and appropriate considering his state of mind.“Proceedings for contempt are not intended for punishment, but to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court,” it stated..[Read Judgment]

Why Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered Bar Council to assess mental state of a lawyer

Related Stories