SC Bars Lawyer from Practising Over Contempt Of Court

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 in a Contempt of Court case and held Senior Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara accountable for his actions. He was barred from practising  in the Apex Court for a year and was given three months suspended sentence.

Facts of the case

The top court on last Wednesday accused Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara of high handedness, intimidation and “browbeating” the judges in Court. The Apex Court pointed out that Advocate Nedumpara has always shown a bad attitude in courts whenever things do not work in his favour. The Court had held the Advocate’s repeated bad behaviour in his attitude towards judges while attempting to browbeat and insult them is a matter of contempt of court case. On March 11 the judges held him guilty on such charges and decided on sentencing on March 27.

The Supreme Court was hearing a case on March 5 where National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms had raised a contention through their Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara. Advocate Nedumpara argued that “sons and daughters of judges were given priority in awarding of the ‘senior advocate’ designation.” He also questioned the validity of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and rallied against the concept of “two classes of advocates.” He was also extremely disrespectful while addressing the Court and claimed “judges were unfit to grant senior advocates designation to the lawyers,” showing blatant contempt and disregard towards senior advocate Fali S Nariman at the same time.  

Court ruling

The two-judge Bench of Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Vineet Saran were hearing the case when they took exception to his behaviour and warned Advocate Nedumpara for the same. Because of his abusive attitude the judges held him in contempt and reserved March 27 for sentencing. He was found guilty of the charges and was sentenced to three months in prison and was barred from practising in Supreme Court for a year. The three months prison term was later suspended by the judges when Advocate Nedumpara apologised to the Court and agreed to take an undertaking that he would not repeat such behaviour.

Advocate Subash Jha arguing for his client Advocate Nedumpara pointed out that the Bench should not be hearing the contempt case of his client and the case should be heard by someone else. The Apex Court rejected the plea and observed, “the Bombay Bar Association and others have written a letter to the President and the CJI wherein they attacked us in the most scurrilous manner. You are acting in tandem. You have undermined the highest judiciary.”

The top court also found that “in point of fact, the style of this particular advocate is to go on arguing, quoting Latin maxims, and when he finds that the court is not with him, starts becoming abusive. He was in the habit of terrorising Tribunal members and using intemperate language to achieve his ends before several judges of the Bombay High Court.”

Justice Nariman further reiterated, “Justice U U Lalit has a father who is practising lawyer. Are you aware I have a daughter who is practising law and not allowed to enter this court? Is it an issue -based or related to an individual? Non mentioning of the name of Justice Lalit shows that it is not issue-based.”

On the issue of Section 16(2) Advocates Act, 1961 the Apex Court dismissed the plea and held, “the writ petition, in essence, seeks a second review of our judgment reported in ‘Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors’.

Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this Court. We are also of the view that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the designation of senior advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty or as a matter of right.”

Impact of the judgment

The top court has always shown stringent policies towards court proceedings and has maintained that Court officials should maintain a certain degree of decorum and discipline while conducting themselves within the court premises. The Apex Court has held decency, discipline and dedication at the highest levels are required of fellow judges and lawyers as they are supposed to decide on such issues where the Court becomes the moral compass of the society and lends a helping hand in guiding the citizens from the morass of centuries-old regressive practices, setting standards of public morality and bringing justice to the needy. All of these require judges and lawyers to be held accountable under more stringent regulations and be judged upon strict values and ethics. So it is essential at all times for Court officials to undertake the responsibility of not undermining the key pillar of justice and democracy of our country through their words and actions.

The top court has always shown stringent policies towards court proceedings and has maintained that Court officials should maintain a certain degree of decorum and discipline while conducting themselves within the court premises. The Apex Court has held decency, discipline and dedication at the highest levels are required of fellow judges and lawyers as they are supposed to decide on such issues where the Court becomes the moral compass of the society and lends a helping hand in guiding the citizens from the morass of centuries-old regressive practices, setting standards of public morality and bringing justice to the needy. All of these require judges and lawyers to be held accountable under more stringent regulations and be judged upon strict values and ethics. So it is essential at all times for Court officials to undertake the responsibility of not undermining the key pillar of justice and democracy of our country through their words and actions.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -