'Systematic Campaign To Demean': Gujarat High Court Sentences Lawyer To 3-Month Jail, Fines ₹1 Lakh For 'Scandalous Attack' On Judges

The Gujarat High Court held a lawyer guilty of contempt of court for levelling "false" and "scandalous" allegations against judges of the high court and judicial officers, sentencing him to three-months imprisonment along with cost of Rs. 1 Lakh. 

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani passed the order in a batch of contempt applications initiated suo motu over the years (beginning from 2011) against the contemnor,  an advocate practicing in the High Court as well as other courts in the State.

The bench noted that despite ample opportunities offered to the contemnor during the proceedings, he had not tendered any apology; on the contrary he had continued his contemptuous conduct. It thus said:

"By his conduct, the dignity and majesty of this Court has been obliterated. His acts of filing a criminal complaint against the amicus curiae, seeking prosecution of Hon'ble Judges, and publishing public notices in the newspapers naming the Hon'ble Judges and Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court unquestionably amount to interference with the course of administration of justice, tends to lower the dignity and majesty of this Court, prejudice court proceedings, obstruct officers of the Court, and abuse the process of the Court, bringing disrepute or disrespect to the courts. We reiterate the observations of the Supreme Court that an attack on a Judge or Judges, which is offensive, intimidatory, or malicious beyond condonable limits, must be met with the strong arm of the law in the name of public interest and public justice to strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream". 

In the past, bailable warrants, as well as non-bailable warrants, had been issued against the lawyer to secure his presence. As per earlier orders he had also been arrested, sent to jail in the past and had been directed to deposit Rs. 5 Lakh. The contemnor had also given an undertaking that he shall present himself for the hearing in the matter, however he had failed to do so. 

The court said,

"It is noticed that the contemnor has a tendency to level scandalous allegations against a particular Hon'ble Judge or Judicial Officers in the proceedings wherever he files, either before this High Court or before any other forum. This modus operandi of browbeating the presiding Judges is adopted by him in almost every court, in which he has filed the proceedings...It is also observed that the contemnor has issued notices for the initiation of contempt proceedings and criminal proceedings against sitting Hon'ble Chief Justices and Hon'ble Judges of this Court...".

Among various instances mentioned, the bench noted that the contemnor had sent a notice in 2010 to a former sitting high court judge to answer it within 21 days, "failing which suitable action would be taken in accordance with law". The bench noted that the lawyer had addressed notices to a former Presiding Officer of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and had also addressed notices to the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat, and Judicial Officers of trial courts.

The bench further noted that the contemnor had also published a public notice in a newspaper in 2006 levelling allegations of corruption and illegal gratification against the Chief Justice. It also observed that "52 notices have been issued, including the public notices in the newspapers", by the contemnor to Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court, the Registrar General, Judicial Officers, Metropolitan Magistrates, Sessions Judges, etc. 

It said:

"The documents on record and the orders passed against the contemnor suggest that he has not only indulged in boisterous behavior but has systematically undertaken a campaign with ill-motive to demean and lower the majesty of this Court by making scandalous and libelous allegations against the Hon'ble Judges, Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court and the Judicial Officers"

Senior advocate Asim Pandya appointed as amicus curiae argued even during the pendency of the contempt proceedings the contemnor continued his scandalous attack against high court judges and also leveled reckless allegations against Pandya claiming that the senior counsel was not discharging his duties as amicus independently.

Meanwhile appearing for the contemnor advocate Kurven Desai (appointed from legal aid panel) submitted that, since the proceedings have been ongoing for the last 15 years and considering the contemnor's health, leniency may be shown to him. He also said that the contemnor's acts do not directly interfere with the administration of justice.

The bench observed that it had ensured that the contemnor could present his defence and had appointed an advocate to represent him as he had repeatedly chosen not to remain present despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants.

The bench further observed that the contemnor was informed about about his unwarranted conduct and he was put to notice as to why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated, observing that this is "akin to a charge, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a fair procedure".

It said that such a case of blatant disregard of the rule of law–where dignity of individual Judges are attacked and scandalized, demands that the high court curbs this "nuisance with an iron hand to uphold the majesty of the law, the administration of justice, and to repose the trust, faith, and confidence of the people".

Finding the contemnor guilty of both civil and criminal contempt the court sentenced the advocate to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The court further imposed "cost of Rs. 1,00,000" under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules to be deposited in three weeks. 

"The Registry shall do the needful and inform the concerned police authority to arrest the contemnor, to execute the present order. No set-off of the period of incarceration, of approximately 80 days, shall be granted to the contemnor," it added. 

Case title: Suo Motu vs Devesh Bhatt & Anr. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 124