Read Time: 08 minutes

In a matter pertaining to contemptuous conduct of a counsel before the Trial Court presided over by a lady judge, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that even more thoughtfulness and sensitivity is required from the bar members when the judge is a woman.

Court said that “it is expected from the Bar members that they will appreciate the multitasking performed by a lady judge while taking care of her home, family as well as work front.”

The High court Division Bench at Gwalior comprising Justices Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak was hearing a criminal contempt petition against one advocate, who during a case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia made a threatening remark towards the presiding judge.  

The contemnor, Advocate Pankaj Mishra had remarked,

“मुझे  पंकज मिश्रा कहते हैं, मेरा नाम नोट कर लीजिये | भविष्य में आपके लिए परेशानी हो जाएगी, आप ऐसी नौकरी नहीं कर पायेंगी |”

(Note my name, it is Pankaj Mishra. In the future, you will have problems and you will not be able to continue working your job)

Thereafter, the trial court found this conduct of the advocate contemptuous and made a reference before the High Court under Section 15(2) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Upon hearing the matter, emphasizing upon the nobility of the profession (Bar and Bench), the high court, however, disposed of the contempt petition with certain directions while advising the respondent for course correction.

Granting relief, Court noted that the contemnor had expressed an unconditional apology and his counsel had not tried to defend his behaviour in any manner, they only sought grant to his apology with the undertaking that he shall never repeat the misdemeanor in any Court of law as he learnt the lesson hard way and would mend his ways.

Accordingly, court directed the contemnor advocate to not indulge in any contemptuous act in future and plant 20 saplings either in the District Court campus or any suitable place earmarked by the District Administration for plantation and disposed of the matter.

Importantly, while disposing of the case, the court made several significant remarks relating to the relationship between Bar and Bench.

Stating that this is a case where contempt proceedings are to be seen from the vantage point of Bar and Bench relationship, Court observed,

“Bar and Bench share common platform for the cause of justice. All other professions are guided by the spirit of Service and Integrity but this profession beside this spirit, also Primes Compassion, Mercy and above all Empathy. Therefore, this profession (Bar and Bench) like medical profession has distinction to heal.”

Court added that Bar is the genus from which species of Judges, Advocates, Senior Advocates and other Constitutional Legal Functionaries like Attorney General, Advocate General etc. evolve.

Addressing the Legal and Medical professionals as Healers of Society, the court held that therefore, presence of emotions (sensitivity for the cause) guides the professionals to interpret the Law.

Calling the Bar and Bench two wheels of the chariot of justice, court said that unless both the wheels do not move in tandem then casualty is Justice and nothing else.

Further stating that Magisterial Courts are the foundation on which whole edifice of Indian Judicial Architecture stands, Court, however, stated that it is also true that sometimes, some Magistrates react sharply and sometimes friction appears between the Bench and the Bar.

Court said, “Therefore, it is the duty of the senior members of the Bar and/or Bar Association of that District to guide the members of the Bar about the nobility attached to the profession.”

On the other hand, court also expected Principal District and Sessions Judge and Senior Judges to guide young judges about nuances and dignity of profession.

Concluding its observations upon the issue, Court also said that State Judicial Academy is also required to hold such sessions/discussions, if possible, for such eventualities and for dispute resolution between the Bar and Bench so that dispute resolution between litigants can be achieved for which Courts are established.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Pankaj Mishra