The Bombay High Court has reiterated its stance on the professional conduct of advocates, emphasizing that lawyers who sign applications or pleadings containing scandalous remarks against the Court without reasonable grounds may be liable for contempt action. This observation was made while the Court contemplated action against two lawyers and issued a contempt notice against their client.
Also read-Retired Bombay HC Chief Justice Ramesh Dhanuka Loses ₹50K in Cyber Fraud Case – LawChakra
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and NR Borkar, highlighted the conflict between a lawyer’s obligations to the Court and their duty to their client. The Court firmly stated,
“It is the duty of the advocates to advise their clients to refrain from making allegations of such nature,”
drawing upon the Supreme Court judgment in M.Y. Shareef & Another Versus The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur & Others [1955 SCR (1) 757].
The case in question involved a praecipe (application to circulate the matter) filed through Advocate Zoheb Merchant, junior of Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani, on behalf of their client Bhisham Hiralal Pahuja. The application included a newspaper article that cast aspersions on Justice Sambre, alleging bias towards the petitioner in the case and suggesting that Justice Sambre would grant bail to maintain relations with him. It was also stated that a complaint against Justice Sambre had been filed with the Chief Justice of India.
Upon inquiry, Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani, under whom Advocate Zoheb Merchant works, initially stood by the contents of the praecipe. However, after the Court pointed out that the conduct of both lawyers was scandalizing the Courts and creating an artificial situation to avoid the matter being taken up, the lawyers tendered an unconditional apology.
Also read-Gujarat High Court Affirms Dismissal Of Judge For Unauthorized Leave And Misconduct (lawchakra.in)
The Court took strong exception to the lawyers’ conduct, noting that both lawyers had submitted the praecipe and, despite being advised by the Registry to refrain from doing so, they insisted on its acceptance. The Court directed the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissioner of Police to ensure service of the contempt notice on respondent Bhisham Pahuja and to submit details of the newspaper ‘Rajdharma’, which published the scandalous article.
The Court relied heavily on a Supreme Court judgment which held that lawyers cannot hide behind client instructions when signing pleadings that scandalize the court. The Court stated it would consider whether the unconditional apologies tendered by the lawyers were bona fide.
In its conclusion, the Court emphasized that judges are expected to decide disputes without personal bias or prejudice. It observed that lawyers and litigants who engage in behavior that scandalizes the Courts and Judges, attempting to secure a recusal order, should be dealt with sternly. The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 12, 2024. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the responsibility of legal professionals in upholding the dignity of the courts.
Also read-Kapil Sibal: I Have Ram In My Heart. I Don’t Need To Show Off Like BJP. (lawchakra.in)
