Senior advocate Virender Kumar Jain, who was issued notice for criminal contempt of court by the high court for appearing in a kurta-pyjama in the court and entering into a verbal spat with a judge, has moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of his case to the high court of some other state.
Appearing before the division bench headed by justice Rajive Bhalla on Wednesday, Jain said, "I had filed a petition for transfer of the contempt case from the Punjab and Haryana high court to the Himachal Pradesh high court. But it was returned to me with some observations. I am soon going to file the petition again."
Jain said, "It (petition) may come up for hearing in December. I just want to bring the facts on record. So I want adjournment here."
On this, the court adjourned the case for next hearing on December 10 saying, "It is for the Supreme Court to decide whether it would go to the Himachal Pradesh high court or some other high court."
On October 5, Jain was to appear before justice Rakesh Kumar Garg's court for arguing a case but his junior advocate had made a request for adjournment citing the senior advocate's difficulty to appear. Thereafter the court called advocate JL Malhotra, on whose name the affidavit was submitted in the case.
After some time, advocate Malhotra appeared along with senior advocate Jain who was in a kurta pyjama. On this, justice Garg pointed out that the senior advocate was not in a proper dress. It was then that the verbal spat ensued between the two and finally justice Garg retired to his chamber. But after some time when the judge came back to the court, the senior advocate allegedly started a heated argument in the presence of high court bar association president Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu.
On this, justice Garg had referred the matter to the chief justice for his intervention and appropriate directions. The chief justice referred the matter to be heard by justice Bhalla, who issued notice to Jain on October 11 seeking his response.
Jain was also issued a show-cause notice by the high court on the administrative side as to why the status of the senior advocate conferred upon him in 1989 not be withdrawn for his alleged unprofessional behaviour.