E-Paper
SC alerts lawyers against signing petitions without paying attention to details
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a show-cause notice of contempt to an advocate on record, who signed a petition that bore snide remarks against a high court and imputed bias on the judges there
New Delhi: Supreme Court lawyers putting their signatures on petitions without paying attention to the smallest details, beware.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued a show-cause notice of contempt to an advocate on record (AoR), who signed a petition that bore snide remarks against a high court and imputed bias on the judges there.
A bench headed by justice BR Gavai issued show-cause notices of contempt to the AoR as well as the petitioner, taking strong umbrage at the “derogatory” statements made in the petition filed challenging an order of the Karnataka high court in September.
The court underlined a 1955 judgment of the top court, which cautioned the lawyers against putting their stamps on pleadings without carefully going through them.
“The constitution bench of this court in the case of MY Shareef and Another Vs The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors (1955) has held that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the court,” noted the bench, which also included justice BV Nagarathna.
Seeking the personal presence of the two on December 2, the court stated in its order: “Issue notice, returnable on December 2, 2022, to the petitioner, Mohan Chandra P, as well as the Vipin Kumar Jai, as to why an action for contempt of the court be not initiated against them.”
The petitioner, a lawyer and a former civil judge, had challenged the appointment of various persons to the posts of the state chief information commissioner and state information commissioner, but his plea was dismissed by the high court not only for lacking merit but also for suppressing clear facts about his antecedents.
The high court also imposed a fine of ₹5 lakh on Mohan, holding that he not only wasted precious time of the court by filing frivolous petition but also concealed a material fact that he was discharged from the judicial service in 2018 after being found not suitable to hold the post.
Filing his appeal in the top court, Mohan accused the high court of acting with bias and imposing the fine for gaining publicity – contentions that the Supreme Court bench found prima facie contemptuous.
In Shareef’s case, the constitution bench had held that the counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of court. It added that the duty of a lawyer is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in his pleadings.
