Allahabad High Court Refuses To Recall Contempt Referral Against Advocate For Alleging Court “Bias And Dishonesty” During Bail Hearing
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Siddharth declined to recall its earlier order referring an advocate’s case to the Division Bench for criminal contempt proceedings after he submitted a written statement accusing the Court of bias and dishonesty during a bail hearing. The matter had arisen from a bail application in a murder case where the counsel, representing the informant, filed remarks questioning the Court’s integrity instead of addressing the legal arguments. While Justice Siddharth accepted the advocate’s unconditional apology, the Bench clarified that such acceptance does not absolve him of contempt already committed. Consequently, the earlier reference to the Division Bench for contempt and to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for disciplinary action remains in effect.
The case arose from a bail application filed by one of the accused charged under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Arms Act, 1959 in connection with a violent altercation that occurred in a village in Mainpuri district. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with several others, armed with country-made firearms and lathis, went to the house of the informant following an earlier enmity and opened fire with the intent to kill. During the incident, the informant’s daughter sustained a gunshot wound and was declared dead while being taken to the hospital, whereas his wife and another daughter were physically assaulted. The accused was alleged to have participated in the assault as part of an unlawful assembly.
During the bail proceedings, the applicant’s counsel submitted that multiple persons were accused of firing, but only one gunshot injury was found on the deceased. It was argued that the applicant had been assigned a general role similar to a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and therefore, he also deserved similar relief. The counsel further contended that the applicant had no previous criminal record.
The informant’s counsel initially sought adjournments on several occasions and later filed written submissions opposing the bail. Instead of providing a factual or legal response to the defence arguments, the submissions contained allegations against the presiding judge, accusing the Court of bias and dishonesty. These remarks were deemed contemptuous. The Court noted that the counsel’s statements required consideration by the Division Bench competent to hear criminal contempt matters and directed the registry to place the record before it, while also forwarding the matter to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for review of professional conduct.
Justice Siddharth recorded that the counsel for the informant had repeatedly sought adjournments, delaying the hearing of the bail application. The Court noted that although he was allowed to file written submissions, he instead submitted a document containing allegations against the Court. The order stated, “He has made allegations against the court that court is biased and dishonest. He has no faith in the court consisting of his Lordship.”
The written submission also attributed statements to the judge, quoting him as having said, “यह बेवकूफी की बहस है… यह बेवकूफी की बहस सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चलती hai, हाईकोर्ट में नहीं,” (translated as: “This is a foolish argument. This kind of foolish argument goes on in the Supreme Court, not in the High Court.”)
The Court observed: “The allegations made by learned counsel for the informant against court require consideration by Division Bench of the court, hearing criminal contempt matters. Therefore, the registry of this court is directed to place the record of this case before the appropriate court for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate as per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act within a week.”
The Court further remarked: “The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to consider the conduct of the counsel for the informant and decide, after hearing him, whether conduct of Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate is in consonance with code of conduct for the lawyers in court. Registry of this court will supply the required documents to the Bar Council of U.P within a week.”
Accepting the advocate’s apology, the Court clarified, “The part of the order referring the matter to the Bench for hearing criminal contempt matters and to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall not be affected by the acceptance of unconditional apology.” It further observed, “The proviso (to Section 12) clearly envisages both situations, namely the discharge of the contemnor or the remission of his punishment… a discretion is left to the court even after accepting an apology either to refrain from awarding any punishment to the contemnor or to award him lenient punishment.”
The Court recorded, “The law punishes the contemnor out of no personal consideration for the Judge… The maintenance of the authority of the judiciary is indispensable to the stability of the nation.”
The Court stated, “An apology in a case of contempt such as the one before this court cannot have the effect of taking the sting out of the contempt. We have to bear in mind the greater interest of the judiciary and the public, not so much the personal affront made by the contemnor but the public wrong that a contempt of this nature involves. It is duty of court to see that such attempts are suppressed in the larger interest of the Judiciary / Country.”
The Court stated, “The above recall application is only partly allowed, to the extent it submits apology. Regarding purging of contemnor for contempt, it is for the contempt court to decide, in view of the legal position in this regard found by this court and considered hereinabove.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar, Shashi Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: G.A., Narendra Singh, Harish Chandra Shukla
Case Title: Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15885 of 2024
Bench: Justice Siddharth
