Allahabad HC Rejects Advocate's Plea To Recall Order Sentencing Him To 6 Months In Jail For Calling Judges 'Goondas'

Pandey was found guilty of committing criminal contempt of court by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, as it concluded that Pandey's conduct showed that he treats the judicial process with “utter disdain” and continued to undermine the dignity and integrity of the institution with impunity.

Pandey, who was also restrained from practicing in the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of three years, had moved the recall plea mainly on the ground that he was not separately heard on punishment.

Before the division bench, his sole submission was that the Supreme Court, while holding Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt, punished him by imposing afine of Rs.1/- only. Likewise, he should also be punished by imposing a fine of Rs.1/- only.

The bench, however, rejected his plea as it noted that since Pandey has already been punished in a contempt matter and he is facing six other contempt pleas, and thus, it is not possible to grant him parity with the case of Sr Advocate Bhushan. It observed:

“So far as the case of Prashant Bhushan (supra) is concerned, the same was the only contempt faced by the contemnor in the said case. In the present case, the contemnor has already been punished in Contempt Application (Criminal) No.103 of 2017 in which the Court sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/-, and also restrained him from entering in the premises of High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of two years, and further, he is facing six other contempt petitions. Thus, it is not possible for this Court to grant parity to the contemnor with the case of Prashant Bhushan (supra)”

Furthermore, the Court also refused to accept his 'unconditional' apology while taking into account his previous conduct and punishments, and obserbing that his apology was not 'bona fide'.

“We also do not find any reason to make any modification in the punishment awarded to the contemnor by order dated 10.4.2025 of six months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/, and in case of failure to pay the fine within one month, the contemnor shall undergo further imprisonment of one month,” the bench remarked as it dismissed his recall plea.

Pandey has been directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, within two months and also to deposit fine of Rs.2000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Court within one month.

For context, the facts which led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Pandey are that, on August 18, 2021, when the Court assembled in the morning, he appeared before the Court in improper attire, i.e., in civil dress with his shirt unbuttoned.

When the Court advised him to appear in decent dress, he defied the Court's direction, refused to wear the advocate's uniform, and even questioned the Court's definition of “decent dress.”

Thereafter, he created a disturbance, used abusive language, and claimed that the Judges were “behaving like goondas,” which, in the Court's opinion, amounted to scandalizing the Court and attempting to lower its authority in the eyes of the advocates and others present.

As per the Court's order, on August 16, 2021, during the hearing of another case, Pandey had barged into the Court without uniform, shouted at the top of his voice, and disrupted proceedings, claiming his right to address the Court out of turn.

In view of his conduct, the Court had to direct the Court Officer and security personnel to remove him from the courtroom so as to maintain the serenity and decorum of the proceedings. He was ordered to be kept in custody till 3:00 PM that day to allow him time to reflect upon his conduct and to tender an unconditional apology to the Court possibly.

However, upon his release from custody, Pandey again entered the courtroom and resumed his disruptive behaviour instead of expressing remorse or offering an apology.

As per the Division Bench's order, his repeated contemptuous conduct left no scope for any leniency, and despite being given an opportunity to express remorse, he continued to behave in a contemptuous manner. Accordingly, suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against him.