Bombay High Court Judges Recuse From Hearing Plea After Advocate Levels Allegations; Issues Criminal Contempt Notice, Orders Enquiry

The Bombay High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate accusing the judges of acting "hand in glove" with the respondent and therefore, recused from hearing the case.

The judges also issued a show-cause notice for criminal contempt of court to the said advocate and further ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to conduct enquiry against the advocate.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna also ordered the Registry to ensure that no matter in which advocate Vijay Kurle appeared, be placed before the two judges.

"We would have certainly taken the matter to its logical conclusion despite such scurrilous attempts to interfere in the administration of justice, undeterred by such conduct of Mr. Kurle and that of the petitioners and more particularly petitioner No.1. The wheels of justice cannot be halted and the long and iron hands of law are sufficient enough to deal with such situations arising before the Court. However, considering the solemn principle that 'justice should not only be done but seen to be done', that no litigant before us even the advocates, should have a feeling of any dissatisfaction, we would not proceed to hear the proceedings of this writ petition and the other connected proceedings which need to be placed to be heard by an appropriate Bench as the Chief Justice may order," the judges said in the order passed on April 15.

Notably, on March 21, the bench had asked the BCMG to clarify it's stand on the issue of litigants making unnecessary complaints and frivolous allegations against advocates, who appear for the responding litigants. This was after the bench heard the instant writ petition filed by the mother and brother-in-law of a man, who sought action against the man's wife and also against the man's advocate. The man and his wife are embroiled in matrimonial disputes and have filed cases against each other.

The man faced orders to pay maintenance to the wife.

However, as per the order passed on April 15, when the matter was listed specifically for advocate Kurle to make submissions, on his own request, he did not make any submissions and rather apprised the judges of the fact that he has written a letter to his clients seeking his discharge.

On going through the said letter, which was also forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court, the judges took exception to the "tenor" of the letter, which basically sought recusal of the two judges from hearing the instant matter.

On being asked about the same, Kurle, present in the court, made allegations against the two judges accusing them of acting "hand in glove with the wife."

"Mr Kurle has crossed all limits of legitimacy as expected from an officer of the Court, when in the open Court he states that "the Court is hand in glove with the respondents", without any material whatsoever. The whole attempt is to intimidate and brow beat the Court and most significantly to lower the dignity and majesty of the Court amounting to gross interference in the administration of justice," the judge said. The bench said it cannot shut its eyes and can clearly see that a "concerted attempt" is made to systematically interfere and disturb the solemnity and purity in the process of law and administration of justice, which is writ large from the several actions of Kurle and the documents as drafted by him.

"We also note that it appears to be quite routine for Mr. Kurle to indulge in such sharp practices rather than conducting the matter on merits as also make allegations against the Court and Judges. Mr. Kurle's letter addressed to the petitioners to seek a discharge, has similar allegations apart from several other similar contents. In our opinion, considering the nature of the allegations on the Court as made by Mr. Kurle before us today causing to bring the Court to disrepute, as also considering the contents of his letter addressed to his clients (the petitioners) amounts to criminal contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the judges held.

In its 24-page order, the bench pointed out that Kurle always had "hostility" not only towards the court but also to his fellow advocates appearing for the other parties and often raise his voice on the judges and the advocates, not letting them speak.

"Mr. Kurle appears to be of the opinion that once he is in robes, he can dictate even to the Court, is his approach. It is most unfortunate. No advocate can assume a position that he can overreach the process of law, and the authority law confers on the Court. In the present proceedings, he has certainly crossed all limits of legitimacy, propriety and rationale expected from an officer of the Court. Such conduct is certainly an anathema to the process of law and the solemnity of administration of justice, least expected from an officer of the Court in the noble profession of advocacy," the bench underscored.

Lastly, the judges noted that some strong observations were made by the Supreme Court against Kurle in Re : Vijay Kurle & Ors and most recently by the High Court bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar, who ordered the BCMG to conduct an enquiry against Kurle for his conduct in the court for seeking adjournment in a matter and obstructing the court from passing a final order.

Case Title: Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court (Writ Petition 6700 of 2018)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150

Click Here To Read/Download Order