1

                                                                                   REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.5 OF 2017

IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1.   A  Noble  Profession.   An  Officer  of  the  Court.  An

Advocate-on-Record having the privilege conferred in that behalf

under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. And a painful task of the

Court to look into the conduct of such an advocate arrayed as a

contemnor in the contempt proceedings.   

2.    On 07.04.2017 right  in  the morning at  10.30 a.m.,  we were

confronted by Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record, making

the  first  mentioning  in  an  extremely  agitated  and  aggressive

manner.  He  sought  to  contend  that  a  great  manipulation  had

2

occurred  in  the  Registry  of  this  Court  in  order  to  favour  the

opposite party with the objective of “Bench Hunt”. He sought to

produce  before  the  Court  a  letter  dated  07.04.2017,  during

mentioning, which was taken on record as Annexure ‘A’. In order to

appreciate the said letter, we reproduce the same as under :

“To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Supreme Court, New Delhi

Reference : Contempt Petition (Civil) No.785 of 2015 & SLP (C) No.31520 of 2013.

Along with connected matters

Sub : Enquiry into the act of unnatural and hasty listing of voluminous matter with sole aim of bench hunting.

My lord,

An unfortunate, anti-institutional and manipulative trend set up by unscrupulous litigants with aim to bench hunt has led this complaint.

The above matters concern SRA project on a 33 Acre Land at  South Mumbai  at  Colaba, conservative valuation of  the dispute would be around Rs.5000 Crores.  Despite interim orders passed by this Court senior officers of the department playing in hands of big corporate, indulge in act of deliberate contempt.  All matters are pending.

Certain alarming detail of the events have cropped up last evening (around 18.30 hrs.), when in Supplementary List the voluminous  matter  (approximately  12000  pages  with

3

reports/studies  etc.)  was  shown  to  be  listed  today  in  a special bench (comprising of HMJ. Arun Misra and HMJ. S. Abdul  Nazeer)  despite  the matter  not  being part-heard or otherwise marked to the said bench.  Matter in usual course of business should have gone to a regular bench.  

In  deviation  from normal  rule  of  listing  the  matter  before regular bench and indulging in constituting a special bench, at eleventh hour is non-conventional and mischievous act on part of Registry.  This gets further worse, as vide ‘Elimination List’ dated 03.04.2017 issued at 18.28 hrs this matter was shown  to  be  deleted  from  the  advance  cause  list  dated 07.04.2017.   Thus,  putting a  matter  on board an evening before  is  virtually  giving  no  time  to  a  party  situated  at Mumbai and counsel at Delhi to prepare.

An  enquiry  be  made  and  practice  direction  be  issued specially  concerning  all  such  voluminous  and  high  stake matters where the parties are from distant places and need sufficient notice of listing.

In present matter, serious issues arise

- Why  this  matter  is  listed  in  unnatural  haste  and  without constituting  enough  notice  to  parties/lawyers  and  that  also before a special bench, deviating from the regular bench, in violation of judicial propriety and decorum?

- Could any lawyer/party or any of the Hon’ble Judge made a request, without notice to other parties, for putting the matter on board despite its’ deletion?

In set  of  disturbing facts given above, it  is  requested that subject matter be placed before regular bench or before the Court  of  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  and  stringent  practice directions be issued, as not only in present case, but registry in  past  has  also  indulged  in  such  malpractice  in  past (  reference  is  made  to  CIDCO  and  H.D.  Sudhakar  Vs. Metropolis Hotel matters).  

4

                                                           Submitted By :                                                                    Sd/-

Mohit Chaudhary                                            Advocate-on-Record for the

Petitioner-in-person Dated: 04.07.2017 New Delhi

 Sd/-     PETITIONER”

                                                              (Emphasis supplied)

3.   The allegation thus is clear and unequivocal – the Registry had

colluded with the opposite litigant to hastily list the matter with the aim

of  bench  hunting.  It  was  categorized  as  “an  unfortunate  and

anti-institutional and manipulative trend” which seems to indicate that

the matter was stated to have suddenly appeared in the evening list

prior to the date as the supplementary matter before the special bench,

despite the matter not being ‘part heard’ or otherwise marked to the

bench. This was alleged to be in violation of the normal rule of listing

before a regular bench and indulging in constituting a Special Bench at

the eleventh hour as a non-conventional and mischievous act on the

part of the Registry. This was so despite the fact that the matter had

been earlier deleted from the Advance Cause list of 07.04.2017.

4.   We may  note  that  the  contemnor  is  an  Advocate-on-Record

practicing in that capacity since the year 2009 – not a novice in the

5

field.  He  has  been  representing  prestigious  institutions,  State

Government  and Authorities  and is  obviously quite familiar  with  the

practices of this Court. He cannot be said to be oblivious to the fact

that no bench is constituted by the Registry, but by the Chief Justice of

this Court. Thus, in an indirect manner, an imputation was impliedly

made even against the Chief Justice though in the garb of a virulent

attack on the Registry.  

5.   The prayer made in the letter in view of the “disturbing facts” was,

to  place  the  matter  before  a  regular  bench,  and  for  issuance  of

“stringent practice directions” so as to prevent the Registry in indulging

in such malpractices, as “the registry in past has also indulged in such

malpractices”.

6.   To say the least, we were taken aback, not only by the contents

of  the  letter,  but  by  the  manner  of  presentation  in  the  Court.  Our

exploration showed that the averments in the letter were palpably false

as on 31.3.2017, specific directions had been issued for the matter to

be listed on 7.4.2017, “to be heard finally.”  Thus, if inadvertently the

matter was deleted from the Advance List but had re-appeared in the

list, nobody could have been taken by surprise in view of the last order.

It was not also a case where an Advocate-on-Record was expressing

6

some difficulty  in  seeking to make a representation of  the case on

account of being unaware of the listing, in which case, a request would

be made before the concerned bench for some accommodation. The

intent was clear i.e. the bench before which the case was listed could

not hear the matter for reasons best known to the petitioner and the

Advocate-on-Record.   The shoe was thus on the other  foot  i.e.  an

endeavor of bench hunting by the litigant mentioning before us and the

Advocate-on-Record lending his shoulder to that endeavor.   

7.   The order produced in the Court dated 31.3.2017 incidentally was

passed by the  same bench  before  which  the  matter  was  listed  on

7.4.2017, and thus, there was no change even in the bench, nor had

the case been placed before a special bench. It was listed before the

regular bench. It was not listed before any special bench. The letter of

the contemnor  was also accompanied by certain articles  relating to

“bench hunting”  leaving  nothing  in  doubt  about  the  direction  of  the

attack of the contemnor.  

8.   We did not consider it a matter to let go. The listing had been

based on a judicial direction and had not been determined at the hands

of the Registry of the Court. The allegations sought to be made against

the Registry with insinuations directed even against the Judges, led to

7

our  prima  facie satisfaction,  that  the  Advocate-on-Record  had

committed  contempt  in  the  face  of  the  Court,  by  making  such

insinuations and allegations, and thus notice of contempt was issued

then and there, with liberty granted to Mr. Mohit Chaudhary to file an

affidavit, in this behalf. The matter was posted for 10th April, 2017.  

9.   The contemnor, faced with the proceedings of contempt on the

face of the Court, sought to back track, by seeking to file an affidavit on

the  same  date  before  the  Court.  In  the  affidavit  verified  by  the

contemnor as “true and correct to my knowledge and belief”, it  was

affirmed, that while representing the interest of the client he had made

a mention before the Court which, according to him, was to the best of

his judgment, the only course available. We reproduce the affidavit as

under:-

“To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, And his companion judges Supreme Court, New Delhi

AFFIDAVIT

I Mohit Chaudhary S/o Late Sh R.K. Chaudhary Resident of B-180, East of Kailash, New Delhi, aged 40 years, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:

8

1. At the outset,  I  say that  I  have highest  regards for  the judicial system of India and for this Hon’ble Court. I am an Advocate on Record of this Court. Whatever I am today (in terms of my identity) is because of being an officer of the Court, so I can never even dare or attempt to defy the dignity and majesty of Court, even in my wildest dream.    

2. However, being an officer of the Court and representing the interest of my client (without anything being personal in  it),  I  made  a  mentioning  before  this  Hon’ble  Court, which  according  to  my  judgment  was  the  only  course available. In order to request this Court to issue practice directions  (for  listing  the  matter  where  enough  notice could  have  been given  to  parties),  I  also  handed over grievance  to  the  Hon’ble  Court.  The  copy  of  the  said grievance is only with me and with the Hon’ble Court.

3. However, it  appears that the approach of mine was not proper and thus in order to put my point across, I feel to place on record that :

A. I profusely apologise towards the said act of mine which gave  an  impression  to  this  Hon’ble  Court  that  I  have indulged  in  an  act  of  contempt.  I  even  tendered  my apology in  the  open Court,  the  moment  Hon’ble  Court took a prima facie view of issuing contempt notice to me.  

B. In this Court I have worked for Union of India, PSUs and variety  of  clients  and  even  I  was  being  appointed  as Additional  Advocate  General  for  the  State  of  J  &  K, nowhere there is a complaint of mine.  

4. Towards the end, I again wish to submit my unconditional apology for my unintentional act. Your lordship may take a lenient view in the matter and pardon me.   

 Deponent

VERIFICATION

9

I say that the above contents of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

Verified on 07.04.2017 at New Delhi.

     Deponent”

10.      The  position  adopted  in  the  affidavit,  could  hardly  be

categorized as an unconditional  apology, as it  was a justification of

what the contemnor had done in past and what was stated was “the

approach of  mine was not  proper”.   This  position expressed in  the

affidavit  could  hardly  have  been  accepted  as  a  justification  of  the

actions of  the contemnor. Liberty was sought  and granted,  to  file a

further explanation. The second affidavit filed by the contemnor, was

affirmed on 10.4.2017. The contents of the said affidavit are as under:

“  AFFIDAVIT  OF  SINCERE,  UNCONDITIONAL  APOLOGY  AND UNCONDITIONAL  WITHDRAWAL  OF  THE  SUBMISSIONS  & LETTER DATED 07.04.2017.

I  Mohit  Chaudhary  S/o  Late  Sh.  R.K.Chaudhary

Resident of  B-180, East  of  Kailash,  New Delhi,  aged 40

years, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:

1. I  with  folded  hands  unconditionally  tender  my

apology to  this  Hon’ble  Court  and withdraw each

and every word spoken or written in the letter dated

7th April, 2017 submitted before this Hon’ble Court at

the time of mentioning on 7.4.2017.

10

2. I reiterate that there was no intent on my part to in

any manner or anyways to bring any disrespect to

the dignity of this Hon’ble Court. I strongly believe

that  I  would  have  no  dignity  in  the  absence  of

dignity of this Hon’ble Court.

3. I have always held this Hon’ble Court in the highest

esteem and not done anything which might tend or

cause to be seen as bringing any disrespect to this

great institution dispensing justice to one and all.  

4. I  assure this  Hon’ble  Court  that  I  shall  not  do or

cause to do or tend to do anything ever as a result

of impromptu reaction to such situations. I state that

the few years that I have spent at the Bar I have

made all endeavours to uphold the rule and majesty

of law. The dignity, the respect of this Hon’ble Court

or for that matter every Court established by law is

extremely  dear  to  me  and  pray  my  apology  be

accepted.

5. Not abiding to the discipline of  this Hon’ble Court

has  taught  me  a  lesson  that  merely  listing  of  a

matter  and  that  too  under  the  directions  of  the

Hon’ble Court can never be manipulated as stated

by me and the direction of this Hon’ble Court was

not only binding on all concerned but equally on the

Registry of this Hon’ble Court

11

6. The lesson learnt by my mistakes and errors on 7 th

April,  2017  would  help  me  in  future  to  take  care

before forming any opinion and acting on the same.

The magnanimity of this Hon’ble Court is boundless

and I pray that Your Lordships would show the said

magnanimity  on  the  young  officer  of  this  Hon’ble

Court.

7. I  beseech the indulgence of  this Hon’ble Court  to

very kindly accept my unconditional apology.

8. To err is human and the error committed by me on

7th April, 2017 is one such human error. I once again

withdraw each word spoken and written on 7.4.2017

and tender my unconditional apology to this Hon’ble

Court. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I  the above named Deponent  do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge.

       Verified on this the 10th day of April, 2017 at New Delhi

DEPONENT”

11.      The contemnor now sought to place an unconditional apology,

admitting  not  to  be  abiding  by  the  discipline  of  the  Court.  He

12

acknowledged that listing of a matter, under the direction of the Court,

could never be manipulated as stated by him! If we may say so, it does

not require much imagination and knowledge to know of this fact. The

contemnor beseeched the indulgence of the Court and claimed to have

erred, seeking to withdraw each word spoken and written on 7.4.2017,

and tendered an unqualified apology.

12.      On 10.4.2017, the affidavit filed in Court was taken on record,

and the matter was posted for further consideration on 17.4.2017, with

the  direction  to  also  place  the  “SLP  file”  before  the  Court.  On

17.4.2017,  a  battery  of  counsel  was  present  to  represent  the

contemnor, led by Mr.K.K.Venugopal,  learned senior  counsel.  It  was

his contention that the contemnor had thrown himself at the mercy of

the court, and there was little else he could do. He submitted that the

contemnor had erred grievously, but what he had done, could not be

recalled. Thus he could only plead for the indulgence of mercy. The

order sheet also records the presence of the learned Attorney General,

President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and the President of

the Advocate-on-Record Association, amongst others.  

13.     We are faced with the question, as to what should be the rightful

thing  to  do,  in  such  a  situation.  Is  the  second  apology,  which  is

13

unconditional, enough to absolve the contemnor of all that has been

done  by  him?  Whether  some  consequences  must  follow  on  the

contemnor for his conduct, even if there is ultimately an unconditional

apology tendered by him?

14.    In  determining this  issue, in the conspectus of  the aforesaid

affidavit, one more important fact has to be taken into account. The

records  of  the  case  show,  that  the  original  writ  petition  was  filed

through  one  Puja  Sharma,  Advocate-on-Record,  but  the  contemnor

appeared  on  the  first  date  of  hearing  on  01.10.2013.  The

“vakalatnama” (power of attorney) then changed to one Mr. Gautam

Narayan on 29.01.2014 after obtaining No Objection by Puja Sharma,

but  soon  thereafter,  the  contemnor  filed  the  “vakalatnama”  on

11.11.2014 with No Objection from Mr. Gautam Narayan. However, on

16.02.2015 Mr. Nirnimesh Dube entered as an Advocate-on-Record, in

place  of  the  respondent  contemnor.  Mr.  Nirnimesh  Dube  was

succeeded by Mr. Jinendra Jain on 22.01.2016, and continued to be

the  Advocate-on-Record  upto  04.04.2017,  when  the  respondent

re-enters  the case by filing  a  fresh “vakalatnama”.  Thus,  it  is  quite

obvious that the petitioner engaged the contemnor who came into the

picture on the anvil of mentioning after having remained away from the

14

scene  for  all  this  period  of  time.  The  prior  Advocate-on-Record

remained so on 31.03.2017 when the matter was directed to be listed

for final disposal on 07.04.2017. Even on 07.04.2017 the presence of

Mr.  Jinendra  Jain,  Advocate  is  recorded  apart  from  Mr.  Mohit

Chaudhary  when  the  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  Bench  and  the

petitions were dismissed.

15.     It  is thus quite obvious to us that the scenario was that the

existing Advocate-on-Record refused to oblige the litigant petitioner for

making  the  unreasonable  mentioning  before  the  Court,  as  was

endeavoured by the contemnor, seeking to shift the matter out of an

existing  Bench.  It  is  the  contemnor  who  utilized  the  opportunity  to

re-enter the scene, with the object  of assisting the petitioner, in the

endeavour of such bench hunting, under the garb of allegations and

insinuations, made against the Registry, and for that matter, even the

court. The contemnor thus took a conscious decision to be a pawn in

the hands of the litigant, to scandalize the Court and the Registry of the

Court,  with  the sole  objective  of  achieving a  bench shifting.  It  was

clearly a “commercial decision” to sub-serve the interest of his client,

even though, it would amount to false allegations and be unbecoming

of an advocate.   

15

16.   We  consider  it  appropriate  to  review  some  of  the  judicial

precedents  and texts in respect of the conduct of an advocate. We

recognize the duty of an advocate to put his best case for the litigant

before  the  Court.  This,  however,  does  not  absolve  him  of  the

responsibility as an officer of the Court. It is a dual responsibility. The

right  of  an  Advocate-on-Record  in  the  Supreme  Court,  is  not  an

automatic right coming from the enrollment at the Bar. Something more

has to be done. The rigors of an examination have to be gone through,

which tests the advocate, not only on his legal ability of drafting and

knowledge of law, but on ethical practices. It is only after going through

the  rigorous  exercise  that  an  advocate  is  enlisted  as  an

Advocate-on-Record,  giving  him  the  right  to  act  and  file  pleadings

before this Court, in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.  

17.    A perusal of the relevant Rule contained in Order IV, Rule 5

requires,  inter  alia,  even  training  for  one  year  with  an

Advocate-on-Record, who has been approved by the Court, prior to the

appearance in the test, so that the prospective Advocate-on-Record is

well grounded in the various professional aspects. The requirements

regarding  the  Advocate-on-Record  examination,  held  under  the

general  policy  of  the  Committee  of  Judges appointed  by the  Chief

16

Justice,  requires  testing  in  the  practice  and  procedure  of  Supreme

Court, drafting, advocacy and professional ethics and leading cases.

The contemnor has been an Advocate-on-Record for 8 years.  

18.    To borrow the words of P.B.Sawant, J. in Vinay Chandra Mishra,

In re,1

“Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not

fearlessness.  Use  of  intemperate  language  is  not

assertion of right nor is a threat an argument. Humility

is not servility and Courtesy and politeness are not lack

of dignity. Self-restraint and respectful attitude towards

the Court, presentation of correct facts and law with a

balanced mind and without overstatement, suppression,

distortion  or  embellishment  are  requisites  of  good

advocacy.  A lawyer  has  to  be  a  gentleman  first.  His

most  valuable  asset  is  the  respect  and  goodwill  he

enjoys among his colleagues and in the Court.”

19.    That the practice of law is not akin to any other business or

profession as it involves a dual duty – nay a primary duty to the Court

and then a duty to the litigant with the privilege to address the Court for

the  client  is  best  enunciated  in  the  words  of  Justice  Mookerjee  in

Emperor vs. Rajanikantha Bose2 -

1  (1995) 2 SCC 584 2  49 CAL. 732 ; 71 Ind Cas 81

17

“The Practice of Law is not a business open to all who

wish to engage in it. It is a personal right or privilege…

It is in the nature of a Franchise from the State – That

you  are  a  member  of  the  legal  profession  is  your

privilege;  That  you  can  represent  your  client  is  your

privilege; that you can in that capacity claim audience

in  Court  is  your  privilege.  Yours  is  an  exalted

profession in which your privilege is your duty and your

duty is your privilege. They both coincide.”  

20.      Warvelle’s Legal Ethics, 2nd Edition at page 182 sets out the

obligation of a lawyer as:

“A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall

detract  from the  dignity  of  the  court,  of  which  he  is

himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all

times  pay  deferential  respect  to  the  Judge,  and

scrupulously observe the decorum of the courtroom”.

21.     The contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect the reputation

of the concerned Judge so that he can administer Justice fearlessly

and fairly, but also to protect “the fair name of the judiciary”. The

protection in a manner of speaking, extends even to the Registry in

the performance of its task and false and unfair allegations which

seek  to  impede  the  working  of  the  Registry  and  thus  the

18

administration  of  Justice,  made  with  oblique  motives  cannot  be

tolerated.  In  such  a  situation  in  order  to  uphold  the  honor  and

dignity of the institution, the Court has to perform the painful duties

which we are faced with in the present proceedings. Not to do so in

the words of P.B.Sawant, J. in  Sanjiv Dutta, Dy. Secy., Ministry

of Information & Broadcasting, In re,3 would –

“The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to

a stage when the system will be found wrecked from

within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the

members of the profession to introspect and take the

corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the

unpleasant duty. We say no more.”

22.        Now turning to the “Standards of Professional Conduct and

Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules contained in Section I of

Chapter II,  Part VI,  the duties of an advocate towards the Court

have been specified. We extract the 4thduty set out as under:

“An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain

and prevent his client  from resorting to sharp or

unfair practices or from doing anything in relation

to  the Court,  opposing counsel  or  parties  which

the advocate himself ought not to do. An advocate

3 (1995) 3 SCC 619

19

shall refuse to represent the client who persists in

such  improper  conduct.  He  shall  not  consider

himself a mere mouthpiece of the client, and shall

exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained

language  in  correspondence,  avoiding  scurrilous

attacks  in  pleadings,  and  using  intemperate

language during arguments in Court.”

23.    In the aforesaid context the aforesaid principle in different

words was set  out  by Justice Crampton in  R. vs.  O’Connell4as

under:

“The advocate is a representative but not a delegate.

He gives to his client  the benefit  of his learning,  his

talents  and  his  judgment;  but  all  through  he  never

forgets what he owes to himself and to others. He will

not  knowingly  misstate  the  law,  he  will  not  willfully

misstate the facts, though it be to gain the case for his

client.  He  will  ever  bear  in  mind  that  if  he  be  an

advocate  of  an  individual  and  retained  and

remunerated often inadequately, for valuable services,

yet he has a prior and perpetual retainer on behalf of

truth and justice and there is no Crown or other license

which  in  any case  or  for  any party  or  purpose  can

discharge  him  from  that  primary  and  paramount

retainer.”   

4  7 Irish Law Reports 313

20

24.      The  fundamentals  of  the  profession  thus  require  an

advocate not to be immersed in a blind quest of relief for his client.

The dignity of the institution cannot be violated in this quest as “law

is no trade, briefs no merchandise” as per Krishna Iyer, J in  Bar

Council of Maharashtra vs. M.V.Dabholkar5.

25.      It is also pertinent to note at this point, the illuminating words

of  Vivian  Bose,  J.  in  ‘G’  a  Senior  Advocate  of  the  Supreme

Court, In re6, who elucidated:

“To use the language of the Army, an Advocate of

this Court is expected at all times to comport himself

in a manner befitting his status as an “officer and a

gentleman”.  

26.      It is as far back as in 1925 that an Article titled ‘The Lawyer

as an Officer of the Court’7 published in the Virginia Law Review,

lucidly set down what is expected from the lawyer which is best set

out in its own words:

“The duties of the lawyer to the Court spring directly

from the relation that he sustains to the Court as an

5 (1976) 2 SCC 291

6 AIR 1954 SC 557 7 Virginia Law Review,  Vol.11, No.4 (Feb. 1925) pp. 263-277

21

officer in the administration of justice. The law is not a

mere private calling, but is a profession which has the

distinction  of  being  an  integral  part  of  the  State’s

judicial system. As an officer of the Court the lawyer

is, therefore, bound to uphold the dignity and integrity

of the Court; to exercise at all  times respect for the

Court in both words and actions; to present all matters

relating  to  his  client’s  case openly, being careful  to

avoid  any  attempt  to  exert  private  influence  upon

either the judge or the jury; and to be frank and candid

in  all  dealings  with  the  Court,  “using  no  deceit,

imposition or evasion,” as by misreciting witnesses or

misquoting  precedents.  “It  must  always  be

understood,” says Mr.Christian Doerfler, in an address

before  the  Milwaukee  County  Bar  Association,  in

December,  1911,  “that  the  profession  of  law  is

instituted among men for  the purpose of  aiding the

administration  of  justice.  A proper  administration  of

justice does not mean that a lawyer should succeed in

winning a lawsuit.  It  means that  he should properly

being to the attention of the Court everything by way

of fact and law that is available and legitimate for the

purpose of properly presenting his client’s case.  

         His duty as far as his client is concerned is

simply to legitimately present his side of the case. His

duty as far as the public is concerned and as far as he

22

is an officer of the Court is to aid and assist in the

administration of justice.”

       In  this  connection,  the  timely  words  of  Mr.

Warvelle may also well be remembered:

        “But the lawyer is not alone a gentleman; he is a

sworn  minister  of  justice.  His  office  imposes  high

moral duties and grave responsibilities, and he is held

to  a  strict  fulfillment  of  all  that  these matters  imply.

Interests  of  vast  magnitude  are  entrusted  to  him;

confidence is imposed in him; life, liberty and property

are committed to his care. He must be equal to the

responsibilities which they create,  and if  he betrays

his  trust,  neglects  his  duties,  practices  deceit,  or

panders to vice, then the most severe penalty should

be inflicted and his name stricken from the roll.”  

      That  the  lawyer  owes  a  high  duty  to  his

profession and to his fellow members of the Bar is an

obvious truth. His profession should be his pride, and

to  preserve its  honor  pure  and  unsullied  should  be

among his chief concerns. “Nothing should be higher

in  the  estimation  of  the  advocate,”  declares  Mr.

Alexander  H.  Robbins,  “next  after  those  sacred

relations  of  home  and  country  than  his  profession.

She  should  be  to  him  the  ‘fairest  of  ten  thousand’

among the institutions of the earth. He must stand for

23

her in all places and resent any attack on her honor –

as  he  would  if  the  same  attack  were  to  be  made

against his own fair name and reputation. He should

enthrone her in the sacred places of his heart, and to

her he should offer the incense of constant devotion.

For she is a jealous mistress.”

        Again, it is to be borne in mind that the judges

are selected from the ranks of lawyers. The purity of

the Bench depends upon the purity of the Bar.

“The  very  fact,  then,  that  one  of  the  co-ordinate

departments  of  the  government  is  administered  by

men selected only from one profession gives to that

profession  a  certain  pre-eminence  which  calls  for  a

high  standard  of  morals  as  well  as  intellectual

attainments.  The  integrity  of  the  judiciary  is  the

safeguard of the nation, but the character of the judges

is  practically  but  the  character  of  the  lawyers.  Like

begets like. A degraded Bar will  inevitably produce a

degraded Bench, and just as certainly may we expect

to find the highest excellence in a judiciary drawn from

the ranks of an enlightened, learned and moral Bar.”

27.     He ends his Article in the following words:

          “No client, corporate or individual, however

powerful,  nor  any  cause  civil  or  political,  however

important, is entitled to receive, nor should any lawyer

24

render, any service or advice involving disloyalty to the

law  whose  ministers  we  are,  or  disrespect  of  the

judicial  office,  which  we  are  bound  to  uphold,  or

corruption of any person or persons exercising a public

office or private trust, or deception or betrayal of the

public. When rendering any such improper service or

advice,  the  lawyer  invites  and  merits  stern  and  just

condemnation.  Correspondingly,  he  advances  the

honor of  his profession and the best  interests of  his

client when he renders service or gives advice tending

to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact

compliance with  the strictest  principles of  moral  law.

He must also observe and advise his client to observe

the statute law, though until a statute shall have been

construed and interpreted by competent adjudication,

he is free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and

as to what  he conscientiously believes to be its just

meaning and extent. But, above all, a lawyer will find

his highest honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity to

private trust and to public duty, as an honest man and

as a patriotic and loyal citizen.”

28.   On examination of  the legal  principles  an important  issue

emerges:  what  should  be  the  end  of  what  the  contemnor  had

started  but  has  culminated  in  an  impassioned  plea  of

25

Mr.  K.K.Venugopal,  learned  senior  advocate  supported  by  the

representatives  of  the  Bar  present  in  Court,  marking  their

appearance  for  the  contemnor.  We  are  inclined  to  give  due

consideration to such a plea, but are unable to persuade ourselves

to let the contemnor go scot-free, without any consequences. We

are thus not inclined to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction

except to caution the contemnor that this should be the first and the

last time of such a misadventure. But the matter cannot rest only at

that.

29. It was not an innocent act, an innocuous endeavor but a

well  thought out decision to tread an unfortunate path which the

existing  Advocate-on-Record  was  unwilling  to  do.  The  objective

was only to assist the client by somehow seeking shifting of the

Bench. The allegations made against the Registry were false and

there were innuendoes against  the Court.   The endeavor failed.

Every action has to have an outcome. The contemnor thus must

face some consequences of his conduct.  

30.      We  are  of  the  view  that  the  privilege  of  being  an

Advocate-on-Record under the Rules has clearly been abused by

26

the  contemnor.  The  conduct  was  not  becoming  of  an  advocate

much less an advocate-on-record in the Supreme Court.  

31.     In this context, we would like to refer to Rule 10 of Order IV

of the said Rules which reads as under:

“10.  When,  on  the  complaint  of  any  person  or otherwise,  the  Court  is  of  the  opinion  that  an advocate-on-record has been guilty of misconduct or of conduct  unbecoming  of  an  advocate-on-record,  the Court may make an order removing his name from the register of advocates on record either permanently or for  such  period  as  the  Court  may  think  fit  and  the Registrar shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of India and to State Bar Council concerned:

 Provided that the Court shall, before making such order, issue to  such advocate-on-record a summons returnable before the Court or before a Special Bench to  be  constituted  by the  Chief  Justice,  requiring  the advocate-on-record to show cause against the matters alleged in  the  summons,  and  the  summons  shall,  if practicable, be served personally upon him with copies of  any affidavit  or  statement  before the Court  at  the time of the issue of the summons.  

Explanation  –  For  the  purpose  of  these  rules, misconduct  or  conduct  unbecoming  of  an advocate-on-record shall include –

(a) Mere  name  lending  by  an  advocate-on-record without any further participation in the proceedings of the case;

(b) Absence of the advocate-on-record from the Court without any justifiable cause when the case is taken up for hearing; and

27

(c) Failure to submit appearance slip duly signed by the advocate-on-record  of  actual  appearances  in  the Court.”      

The  aforesaid  Rule  makes  it  clear,  that  whether  on  the

complaint of any person or otherwise, in case of misconduct or

a  conduct  unbecoming  of  an  advocate-on-record,  the  Court

may make an order  removing his  name from the register  of

Advocate-on-Record permanently, or for a specified period. We

are not referring to the right to practice as an advocate, and the

name entered on the rolls of any State Bar Council, which is a

necessary requirement, before a person takes the examination

of Advocate-on-Record. The present case is clearly one where

this Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the contemnor is

unbecoming of  an Advocate-on-Record.  The pre-requisites of

the  proviso  are  met,  by  the  reason  of  the  Bench  being

constituted itself by the Chief Justice, and the contemnor being

aware of the far more serious consequences, which could have

flowed to  him.   The learned senior  counsel  representing the

petitioner has thrown him at the mercy of the Court.  We have

28

substantively  accepted  the  request  but  lesser  consequences

have been imposed on the contemnor.  

32.  We are thus of the view that the appropriate course of

action would be that the contemnor is not permitted to practice

as an Advocate-on-Record, for a period of one month from the

date of  the order. A painful task had to be performed and is

performed.  

33.   We hope that both for the petitioner and other advocates

who may consider the interest of the client paramount even to

breach the ethical practice of the court, this would be a caution.

We say no more.   

                                                       .…..………………………CJI.

(Jagdish Singh Khehar)

                                …….….…………………….J.     (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

              ...……………………………J.         (Sanjay Kishan Kaul)

New Delhi; August 17, 2017.

29