Supreme Court Holds Advocate Mathews Nedumpara Guilty of Contempt

The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in In Re: Mathews Nedumpara, adjudicated on the contempt of court proceedings against Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara. The case arose from his alleged conduct in court and subsequent actions that questioned judicial propriety.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Mathews Nedumpara. The Court had, in an earlier judgment, held him guilty of contempt for making scandalous allegations and attempting to browbeat judges during proceedings. The contempt primarily related to his conduct in the case of National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019).

The Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to Mr. Nedumpara, asking him to explain why he should not be punished for contempt of court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court, through its suo motu proceedings, put forward the following arguments against Mr. Nedumpara:

• He had repeatedly engaged in acts amounting to contempt by attempting to obstruct the administration of justice.
• His conduct in court was unbecoming of a legal professional and was aimed at disrupting court proceedings.
• He made allegations regarding nepotism in judicial appointments, without any substantial proof, to tarnish the image of the judiciary.
• He showed disregard for previous warnings and continued with similar actions, even after being held guilty of contempt.

Respondent’s Arguments (Mathews Nedumpara)

Advocate Mathews Nedumpara appeared in person and, later, through Advocate Subhash Jha. His main arguments were:

• He had no intention of showing disrespect to the court.
• His comments regarding the judiciary were misconstrued, and he did not mean to allege any personal bias or nepotism.
• He had tendered an unconditional apology in court and urged the Supreme Court to consider it.
• He claimed that his actions were in the interest of judicial transparency and reforms.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the case, observed:

“The conduct of an advocate inside the courtroom must be in accordance with the dignity of the profession. Any attempt to browbeat or intimidate judges is a serious offense.”

The Court also highlighted that previous instances of contemptuous conduct by Mr. Nedumpara had been noted, and despite prior warnings, he persisted with similar behavior.

The Court rejected his apology, noting:

“An apology must be unconditional and genuine. The timing and context of the apology, in this case, indicate that it was an afterthought rather than an expression of genuine remorse.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• Advocate Mathews Nedumpara was sentenced to three months imprisonment for contempt of court.
• His sentence was, however, suspended, subject to his good conduct in the future.
• He was barred from practicing in the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year.
• The contempt proceedings against him were disposed of, subject to his adherence to court decorum in the future.

Implications of the Verdict

The Supreme Court’s ruling has several implications:

• Reaffirming Judicial Authority: The verdict reinforces the authority of the courts and the need to maintain discipline and decorum in judicial proceedings.
• Standard of Legal Practice: The ruling serves as a precedent for legal professionals, emphasizing the need for respectful conduct in courts.
• Consequences of Contempt: The case establishes that contempt of court will not be tolerated, and even senior advocates are subject to strict action for misconduct.
• Judicial Transparency Debate: While the case highlights the importance of maintaining judicial integrity, it also sheds light on the broader debate regarding judicial transparency and accountability.

Through this decision, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that the courts will not allow lawyers or any other individuals to undermine the judiciary’s authority and decorum.

Petitioner Name: Supreme Court of India (Suo Motu).
Respondent Name: Mathews J. Nedumpara.
Judgment By: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Supreme Court of India.
Judgment Date: 27-03-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Supreme Court of Ind vs Mathews J. Nedumpara Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Punishment imposed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category