The Karnataka High Court has initiated a contempt of court case against a lawyer for his misbehavior towards a judge. The lawyer reportedly shouted at the judge and threw files in the courtroom, leading to the court’s decision to take action against him.
Karnataka: At the Karnataka High Court, an advocate faced criminal contempt charges for his conduct during court proceedings. The advocate, identified as M. Veerabhadraiah, was accused of misbehaving by throwing case files, speaking loudly to the bench, and refusing to argue the case on its merits.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Affirms CPI(M)’s M Swaraj’s Election Petition Against Congress MLA K Babu
Justice K. S. Hemalekha of the Karnataka High Court outlined the reasons for initiating contempt proceedings against Veerabhadraiah, which included throwing files in the court after a particular application was rejected, speaking in a loud and directive tone despite warnings from the court, and interrupting court proceedings. The behavior was deemed to undermine the dignity of the court and hinder the administration of justice.
The court’s decision to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was based on the advocate’s actions, which were seen as a direct challenge to the court’s authority and an interference with its procedures. The court observed that the actions of Veerabhadraiah not only disrespected the court’s dignity but also interfered with its normal proceedings.
Section 2(c) in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, interferes interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
The incident occurred when Veerabhadraiah, representing a petitioner, reacted before the court by imposing a cost on an application he filed. His behavior led to the court directing the registrar (judicial) to take the necessary steps to initiate contempt proceedings against him. Additionally, the court ordered that a copy of this directive be sent to the President of the State Bar Council.
In particular, the court cited the following instances of objectionable conduct by the lawyer:.
“(i) Misbehavior: Throwing his files ghastly in dismay after rejection of IA 1/2022;
(ii) Arrogance: Using singular language towards the bench with a directive voice, and in spite of the court warning him to mind his behaviour, he mentioned being “least bothered by the consequences” and left the court in sheer anger, throwing the files.
(iii) Backtalk: talking in a loud voice and refusing to argue the matter on merits despite repetitive requests from the Court as the matter was argued on merits before hearing I.A.No. 1/2022.
(iv) Violation of Court Rules: constantly interrupting the court proceedings while the court was passing orders.”
In response, the lawyer is said to have raised his voice and thrown the case files while objecting to the IA’s dismissal, inviting censure from the Court.
“He threw the files aghastly, stating that he wants to appeal against the order passed on I.A.No.1/2022. Counsel for the petitioner raised his voice, spoke in a harsh manner, and made derogative remarks against the Court, stating that ‘he is not bothered about the consequences’,” Justice Hemalekha recorded in her order.
The Court added that the lawyer had filed several applications to consistently protract the main dispute before the High Court as well, “which is evident from the order sheet.”
The importance of maintaining decorum and respect within the courtroom, emphasizing that actions that violate the court’s dignity and the judicial process will not be tolerated,
CASE TITLE:
Sri Annadurai vs. GOI and Ors | Daily Orders for Case WP 12336/2022
READ ORDER:
