After Opposition From Bar, Supreme Court Recalls Contempt Order Against Advocate & AoR
Following the opposition from the members of the bar, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 1) withdrew its order which held that two advocates prima facie committed contempt of court by filing a vexatious petition.The development happened before a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Earlier(on March 28), the bench had taken objection to certain...
Following the opposition from the members of the bar, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 1) withdrew its order which held that two advocates prima facie committed contempt of court by filing a vexatious petition.
The development happened before a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Earlier(on March 28), the bench had taken objection to certain incorrect statements in the petition and sought the presence of the AoR. The Senior Advocate appearing in the matter had then informed the bench that the AoR had gone to his native village and couldn't appear even virtually due to low internet connectivity. Seemingly unconvinced with the explanation, the bench had then passed an order directing the physical presence of the AoR today along with his travel tickets.
Today, the concerned AoR appeared before the bench with his travel tickets.
Observing that the petition was vexatious and the filing of the same prima facie amounted to contempt of court, the bench initially directed the advocates in the matter to file their affidavits.
As soon as the order was dictated, lawyers present in the court voiced their protests. Some representatives of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) were also present.
One Advocate stated that the Advocates were not given a right to be heard and the order was passed based on "preconceived" notions. He said: "We have been facing contempt. It seems like one order you have dictated, you are reading it out. That is what we are understanding. This is a preconceived kind of a thing...Mylords, after you pass such an order, Bar and Bench, LiveLaw, everything will report. You are ruining the careers of advocates. Just because our seniors have taught us to be modest and always bow before the Court, it does not mean we will remain silent. We have seen previously...This is absolutely unacceptable; we have not seen this kind of thing...After dictating 20 pages, what explanation has he left to place before the Court?..."
Another advocate said, "He deserves an opportunity to be heard. Mylords are passing detailed orders, allow him to submit an [explanation]. They are condemned unheard. Mylords...Everything is reported Mylords, he will be condemned unheard."
Another member of the SCAORA said, "We have seen him for three decades, we have some reputation..."
Even a Senior Advocate from the Respondents's side protested against the passing of the order. He stated that the Advocate had come from the South to earn his livelihood and since everything is quickly reported on social media, the detailed order may not be passed. The Bar requested that the order may be withheld for the time being.
Justice Bela stood to her stance that the situation cannot be defended. She asked how the bar could protest when the Court was only stating facts. She responded: "We don't know anything. We are not against any person...This is not done in the highest Court of the country that Court passes the order and everybody oppose."
Later, since the protest from the advocates continued, the Court removed the lines from the order in regard to the contempt.
Justice Bela, therefore, modified the order: "Pursuant to the order, Mr so and so are present in the Court with the travel tickets and seek unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of the SCBA and SCAORA requested the Court to hold back the order and simply give him the opportunity to explain under what circumstances the present SLP was filed. With due deference to request, we simply call upon the petitioner and his advocates to explain under what circumstances the second SLP on the distorted facts and incorrect statements was filed seeking exemption from surrendering in the earlier SLP in which this Court asked the petitioner to surrender with 2 weeks. Let the affidavit be filed within 1 week...The petitioner shall also present before this Court on April 9, 10:30."
It may be recalled that a bench led by Justice Trivedi had last year directed CBI inquiry against the advocates in a matter where a 'fake' SLP was filed fabricating the signatures of the parties. Another order passed by Justice Trivedi regarding the marking of lawyers' appearances also faced objections from the bar.