Allahabad HC imposed a Rs. 25,000 fine on a litigant for making derogatory remarks to a lawyer, stating such abuse borders on criminal contempt and undermines the legal profession.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The case Bano Bibi v. State of U.P. & Others (PIL No. 538 of 2025) before the Allahabad High Court dealt with an unusual yet serious concern, the verbal abuse of a lawyer by a litigant.
The Court examined whether disparaging and abusive language used by a respondent against an advocate amounts to criminal contempt of court. While the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, it took a firm stand to uphold the dignity of the legal profession, imposing costs and issuing a stern warning.
Background
In a Public Interest Litigation filed by Bano Bibi, a serious issue arose, not just regarding administrative justice but the very dignity and sanctity of the legal profession.
The matter took a concerning turn when Respondent No. 6, Jang Bahadur, allegedly abused and spoke derogatorily towards Mr. Waseem Akhtar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, during a telephonic conversation related to the matter pending at the Tehsil level.
The Registrar General of the High Court, under lawful authority, had recorded and presented the transcript of this telephonic conversation to the Hon’ble Court.
Issue before the Court
Whether a member of the public, specifically a litigant, can use abusive or derogatory language against a practicing advocate concerning their professional duties?
Whether such conduct amounts to criminal contempt of court.
Observation of the Court
Hon’ble Justice Munir, while expressing dismay at the comments made by Respondent No. 6, stated:
“Speaking in derogatory terms about the legal profession does not affect the profession alone but the entire Judicature of which the Bar is an integral part.”
The Court highlighted the critical role of the Bar in ensuring justice, especially under a strained judicial system, comparing lawyers to soldiers of peace who fight relentlessly for justice despite overwhelming workloads and pressures.
Justice Munir provided a rare judicial acknowledgment of the hardships faced by lawyers, describing them as “soldiers in times of peace” who strive every day to uphold justice, often under tremendous pressure. He noted that:
“Members of the Bar… work like soldiers in times of peace to secure justice for citizens… under a very strained judicial system.”
This reflects the Court’s empathy for the professional and emotional toll borne by advocates, who are often unfairly blamed for delays or lapses beyond their control.
The Court strongly criticized the increasing tendency of the public to vilify lawyers for any real or perceived grievances. It highlighted that:
“Members of the Bar are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse…”
This is a sharp commentary on the erosion of public respect for the legal profession, despite its indispensable role in society.
While Justice Munir held that the respondent’s conduct bordered on criminal contempt, the Court opted not to refer the matter to the criminal contempt bench, taking note of the respondent’s remorseful affidavit. The Court showed judicial magnanimity, balancing dignity with mercy,
“…given his unconditional remorse, we eschew that course and instead think that ends of justice would be met by administering him a severe warning…imposing upon him costs of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- will be paid to Mr. Waseem Akhtar, learned Counsel representing the petitioner before the Tehsil and Rs. 15,000/- deposited in account of the State Legal Services Authority. These costs shall be deposited by the sixth respondent within a period of fifteen days hence failing which these shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Registrar General through the District Magistrate, Prayagraj.”
The imposition of costs and a formal warning was not merely punitive, but meant to send a wider message, that such behavior will not be tolerated. By awarding part of the cost directly to the aggrieved counsel and the rest to the State Legal Services Authority, the Court ensured that both the individual and the system receive redress.
Case Title: Bano Bibi v. State of U.P. & Others
PIL No. 538 of 2025
