The Jharkhand High Court quashed adverse remarks against an advocate who allegedly used loud speech and threatened to challenge a bail order in the Supreme Court. The court accepted his apology, stating he deserved an opportunity, and expunged the contempt remarks.
The Jharkhand High Court quashed the negative remarks against an advocate who, during last month’s anticipatory bail hearing, reportedly used loud speech and allegedly threatened the court”by stating he would challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
The High Court of Jharkhand made a important ruling regarding courtroom decorum and contempt proceedings by accepting an advocate’s unconditional and unqualified apology.
This matter arose from an order dated September 25, 2025, concerning anticipatory bail applications (ABA No. 5362 of 2025 and ABA No. 5131 of 2025).
An “untoward incident” occurred during the court proceedings involving Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who was representing the petitioner. As a result, the court refrained from imposing a sentence and referred the matter to the Jharkhand State Bar Council, the governing body for advocate conduct.
Mr. Kumar later filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr. M.P. No. 3017 of 2025) requesting a modification of the order from September 25.
Advocate Mrs. Ritu Kumar, representing the petitioner, stated that her client had submitted an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the incident and assured the court that such behavior would not be repeated.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, present in court, addressed the bench directly, expressing his heartfelt apology and clarifying that it was not intended to evade the consequences of the order.
He requested to be exonerated, while the court noted that,
“President and Secretary of the Advocate Association and other Members of the Bar have collectively expressed regret for the whole affair.”
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi began his analysis by discussing the reasoning behind the initial order. The court remarked that the original ruling was based on the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system, highlighting that the law of criminal contempt prohibits justifications for contemptuous actions.
The court elaborated on the principles surrounding the acceptance of apologies in contempt cases, stating,
“It is well settled that the true and indeed the sole test for acceptance of an apology is an extremely and genuine contrition felt and exhibited at the very outset.”
It distinguished between a genuine apology and a tactical one, asserting that a contemnor cannot justify their actions and then merely apologize when faced with consequences, as that would undermine the legal framework of criminal contempt.
Citing the Supreme Court’s remarks in S. Mulgaokar (1978 (3) SCC 339), the High Court reaffirmed that its discretion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is guided by established principles, necessitating that any apology must be “bona fide and is sincere repentance of his deed or omission.”
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the petitioner had shown genuine contrition, noting,
“This Court… has got no doubt in mind that contemner in the present case has given or tendered a sincere apology and has satisfied the Court of his undertaking to never repeat such an act again especially when on earlier occasion, it was a bona fide error on ill-advice received by him.”
The court also reflected on the rationale behind punishing contempt, emphasizing that the goal is to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in the justice system.
Given the advocate’s sincere apology, the provided undertaking, and the collective regret from the Bar, the court determined that further proceedings were unnecessary.
Justice Dwivedi stated,
“The cause of justice would be subserved in adequate measure, if the apology tendered by the petitioner is accepted and proceedings are dropped.”
Also Read : BREAKING| CJI Gavai Dismisses Plea Seeking Criminal Contempt Against AG R. Venkataramani
The court issued the following orders:
- The apology from Mr. Rakesh Kumar was formally accepted.
- The adverse remarks in the September 25, 2025, order were expunged.
- The Jharkhand State Bar Council was requested to halt any further action against the petitioner.
- The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed and disposed of.
The court accepted the lawyer’s apology, noting that he deserved an opportunity, and subsequently disposed of the plea.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v/s The State of Jharkhand and others
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
