Criminal Contempt in Judiciary: Supreme Court Ruling on Advocate Misconduct

The Supreme Court, in the case of Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate vs. Alok Pandey, C.J.M., delivered a significant judgment addressing criminal contempt of court. This case involved an advocate, Rakesh Tiwari, who was convicted for his misconduct in a courtroom, which included abusing and threatening a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). The ruling highlights the importance of maintaining decorum and discipline in courts and sets a precedent for handling similar cases of misconduct by legal professionals.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Rakesh Tiwari, an advocate, was convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act for his misbehavior in the District Judgeship, Allahabad. He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 2000. If he failed to pay the fine, he would have to serve an additional 15 days in prison. Furthermore, he was banned from entering the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad, for six months, starting from July 15, 2015. The District Judge was instructed to monitor his conduct for two years.

The conviction stemmed from an incident on December 21, 2012, when the appellant entered the chamber of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Allahabad, along with 2-3 colleagues, without permission, and started hurling abuses. He also raised his hand to assault the CJM and threatened him with dire consequences for not passing an order in his favor. This act was deemed criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it lowered the authority of the Court, scandalized judicial proceedings, and interfered with the administration of justice.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the advocate’s actions constituted criminal contempt of court.
• Whether the punishment awarded was appropriate given the nature of the offense.
• Whether courts have the power to restrict an advocate from practicing in judicial premises.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner (Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate)

• He denied entering the chamber of the CJM on December 21, 2012.
• Claimed that he did not abuse or threaten the CJM, arguing that no order was pending at that time.
• Contended that the case against him was fabricated to malign his reputation.
• Argued that the penalty imposed, particularly the restriction on entering the judgeship premises, was excessive and violated his right to practice law.

Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh, Representing CJM, Alok Pandey)

• Presented witness statements confirming that the appellant misbehaved, abused, and attempted to assault the CJM.
• Highlighted that such actions directly undermined the authority of the judiciary and disrupted judicial proceedings.
• Argued that contempt proceedings were necessary to uphold the dignity of the courts.
• Emphasized that such behavior by a lawyer was unacceptable and deserved strict legal action.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Advocates’ Responsibilities in Courtrooms

The Court reiterated that lawyers play a vital role in the justice delivery system and must uphold professional ethics. It observed:

“An advocate is duty-bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court. He plays a vital role in preserving the dignity of the judiciary and cannot be permitted to lower the authority of courts through unruly behavior.”

2. Criminal Contempt and Its Impact

The Court ruled that the appellant’s actions fell within the definition of criminal contempt, as they lowered the authority of the court and interfered with the administration of justice. The judgment emphasized:

“A deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial officer is bound to shake public confidence in the judiciary. Such behavior must be strictly dealt with to maintain respect for the legal system.”

3. Restriction from Entering Court Premises

The appellant contested the restriction on his presence in the District Judgeship, arguing that it violated his right to practice law. The Court ruled that while an advocate cannot be entirely barred from practicing, courts have the authority to regulate conduct within their premises. The judgment noted:

“A lawyer who engages in misconduct can be prevented from appearing in court as a measure to ensure orderly proceedings. This does not amount to revoking their license but is necessary to maintain decorum.”

4. Need for Stricter Control Over Courtroom Behavior

The Supreme Court criticized the growing tendency of lawyers using aggressive tactics to influence judicial proceedings. It highlighted:

• Judges must remain independent and impartial in delivering justice.
• Unruly behavior by lawyers weakens public confidence in the judiciary.
• Attempts to intimidate judges must be curbed through strong legal measures.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for criminal contempt. However, it modified the sentence:

• The six-month imprisonment was suspended for three years, subject to good behavior.
• The appellant was barred from entering the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a total period of three years (July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2022).
• The fine of Rs. 2000 was upheld, with the condition that non-payment would extend the restriction by three months.
• Any future misconduct would lead to immediate activation of the imprisonment sentence.

Implications of the Judgment

• Reinforces the principle that courtroom decorum must be maintained at all times.
• Advocates must not use intimidation tactics against judges.
• Judicial officers are protected from verbal and physical abuse.
• Court premises can be regulated to prevent misconduct.

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a strong warning to members of the legal profession that misbehavior and contemptuous acts in court will not be tolerated. Advocates, as officers of the court, have a duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s verdict ensures that judicial officers can perform their duties without fear of intimidation or harassment, thereby strengthening public confidence in the justice system.

Petitioner Name: Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Respondent Name: Alok Pandey, Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 10-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rakesh Tiwari, Advoc vs Alok Pandey, Chief J Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category