The Supreme Court on March 15 issued a show cause notice for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act in a criminal appeal, the petitioners/accused individuals contended that they were “pressured” by the Single-Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court to withdraw their Section 482 Cr.P.C petition.
The Supreme Court has issued show-cause notices to Advocate-on-Record as well as the arguing counsel involved in a case alleging undue pressure by a Rajasthan High Court judge. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, took significant notice of the averments made by the petitioners, who claimed they were coerced into withdrawing their plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by Justice Anil Kumar Upman.
The controversy began when the petitioners/accused in a criminal appeal stated they were “pressurized” by the single-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court, leading to the withdrawal of their Section 482 CrPC petition. The Supreme Court described these statements as “contemptuous in nature,” highlighting the gravity of the allegations against the judicial process.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue contempt notices was influenced by the petitioners’ claims of having no alternative but to retract their petition due to the alleged pressure from the High Court judge. The High Court had previously dismissed the Section 482 CrPC petition on February 15, noting,
“Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition. Consequently, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
Challenging the High Court’s order, the appeal to the Supreme Court argued that the petitioners were left with no choice but to withdraw their petition under duress. The apex court, referencing a Constitution Bench’s decision in M.Y. Shareef And Another Vs. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur And Others, emphasized that a lawyer who endorses a contemptuous observation is equally culpable of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court’s notice extends not only to one of the petitioners, Virendra Yadav, who verified the affidavit’s contents but also to the current Advocate on Record. Additionally, the court observed that the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. R.K. Rathore, disrupted the proceedings by continuously interrupting and expressing surprise at the court’s order.
Also Read-Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice For Violating Bail Order In Gujarat Case (lawchakra.in)
“While we are dictating the order Mr. R.K. Rathore, learned counsel, tried to obstruct the functioning by interrupting every now and then. Even after the order is passed, he has started making gesture exhibiting surprise for the order that we have passed. Issue notice to Mr. R.K.Rathore, also,”
the bench stated.
The responses to the notices must be provided within one month.
During the hearing on March 15, there was a heated exchange between the counsel and the Bench.
“This is not acceptable. We learn from you,”
Rathore remarked.
“We are showing restraint. Do you remember the gestures you made when we started dictating the order?”
Justice Gavai responded sternly.
This case, titled SUMAN vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, has brought to light significant concerns regarding the conduct of legal professionals and the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court’s actions underscore the importance of maintaining decorum and respect within the courtroom, ensuring that the legal process is conducted without undue influence or obstruction. The individuals involved have been given a month to respond to the notices, setting the stage for further developments in this high-profile legal drama.
Also Read- Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Lawyer For Refusing To Argue In High Court (lawchakra.in)
