New Delhi, Jan 31 (IANS): The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an advocate and a former army personnel who was handed over a three-month civil imprisonment and Rs 2000 fine by the Delhi High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.S. Narasimha denied to interfere with the finding of the conviction recorded in a 2006 order passed by the High Court exercising its suo motu contempt jurisdiction.
However, the bench modified the sentence from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court considering the age and medical condition of the appellant.
“He has had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him. The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters,” it said.
On August 16, 2006, the Delhi High Court noticed that the appellant-advocate gave threats to the lady counsel who was appearing for the other side.
In its order, the High Court said that “it is unfair for any Counsel to give any threats to the Counsel appearing on the other side, as all of them appear as officers of the Court and assist the Court or their respective clients.”
Later, the alleged contemnor filed applications in the same matter making reckless and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges of the High Court.
Around the same time, another Division Bench of the Court had also initiated suo motu contempt action against the advocate after noticing that he had filed an application in a writ petition, where he had made certain improper allegations against the Judges.
The Supreme Court in its judgement noted that there were about seven instances which the High Court had taken into account, where the conduct of the said advocate came under scrutiny in different proceedings.
“We are in complete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations,” it said.
The appellant’s conduct before the High Court and for that matter, even before this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration, the apex court added.