Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani sentenced an advocate to three months' simple imprisonment for acts constituting both civil and criminal contempt of court. The Court further ordered the forfeiture of Rs. 5,00,000 along with accrued interest deposited by the contemnor as per a prior undertaking. Additionally, it imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 and directed the Registry to notify the Bar Council of Gujarat, all judicial forums in the State, and police authorities to execute the sentence.

The proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court of Gujarat against an advocate practicing before the High Court and subordinate courts in the State. The proceedings arose from multiple instances of misconduct by the contemnor, which included making reckless and scandalous allegations against sitting Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court, as well as Judicial Officers.

Also Read: CCS (CCA) Rules | Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated by Minor Penalty Authority for Major Charges | Sets Aside Karnataka HC Relief to Retired Telecom Officer

The contemnor had been directed on multiple occasions to remain present before the Court. Bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued intermittently, and he was arrested and detained. Despite his undertaking to appear and the deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 as security, he failed to comply with these directions. As a result, the Court was compelled to appoint an advocate from the Legal Aid Panel to represent him.

A series of judicial orders reveal that the contemnor continued to indulge in inappropriate behaviour, even while proceedings were pending. He issued notices to sitting Judges, including a notice dated 15.01.2010 to a sitting Judge, seeking responses under threat of legal action. He also sought permission to prosecute various Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and published public notices in newspapers such as The Western Times, including one dated 10.12.2014, criticizing the presiding Judges in ongoing matters.

These acts continued despite several bail opportunities provided by the Court, which were granted with strict conditions, including a prohibition on writing letters concerning Judicial Officers. Following violations, further non-bailable warrants were issued, and the contemnor was again placed in custody.

The record also reveals that the contemnor issued letters and notices not only to Judges but also to the Registrar of the High Court, Judicial Officers of the trial courts, the Chief Minister, and Central Government officials. These included a letter dated 15.09.2016 to the Police Commissioner containing allegations against the Chief Justice.

Further, the contemnor issued notices seeking sanction to prosecute Judges under Sections 166, 217, 218, 219, 220, 406, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such notices were addressed to high constitutional functionaries, including the President of India.

Due to repeated non-appearance and his refusal to comply with court directions, the Court had no option but to appoint advocate Mr. Kurven Desai to represent him. The Court also recorded that despite being aware of the formation of a Special Bench to hear contempt matters against him, the contemnor continued with his conduct.

In total, over 52 notices and communications were issued by the contemnor to Judges, Judicial Officers, and various authorities. The proceedings also involved quashing a criminal complaint filed by the contemnor against the amicus curiae, which the Court held to be an obstruction to justice.

The Court recorded in its order: "The contemnor has cast aspersions against both the Judicial Officers and the Hon’ble Chief Justices and Hon’ble Judges of this Court." It noted a voluminous record of "reckless and scandalous allegations leveled by Mr. Devesh Bhatt" and described his conduct as "a campaign with ill-motive to demean and lower the majesty of this Court."

Addressing the procedural arguments raised by the advocate appointed for the contemnor, the Court observed: "The High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution enjoys similar power given to the Supreme Court under Article 129, and the power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court, [which] cannot be abridged or taken away by legislative enactment."

The Court further stated: "Such contempt may be committed with respect to a Single Judge or a single Court, or the whole of the judiciary or judicial system." It noted that the acts by the contemnor constituted "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) and "civil contempt" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Re: Vijay Kurle, Pallav Sheth, Prashant Bhushan (Contempt Matter), Sukhdev Singh, and C.K. Daphtary, the Court recorded that suo motu proceedings can be initiated independently of limitations prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Bench further stated: "By his conduct, the dignity and majesty of this Court has been obliterated." The Court found that "his acts of filing a criminal complaint against the amicus curiae, seeking prosecution of Hon’ble Judges, and publishing public notices in the newspapers…amount to interference with the course of administration of justice."

Rejecting the plea for leniency, the Court held: "The present proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely for want of his presence," and "an attack on a Judge or Judges, which is offensive, intimidatory, or malicious beyond condonable limits, must be met with the strong arm of the law."

The Court also found that "no set-off of the period of incarceration, of approximately 80 days, shall be granted to the contemnor." It stated that "the contempt committed by the contemnor is both civil and criminal in nature" and that "ample opportunities were offered to him during the proceedings, [yet] he has not tendered any apology."

The Court directed that "the contemner – Mr. Devesh Bhatt is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months." It also ordered: "The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, with accrued interest already deposited by the contemnor, shall be forfeited." Additionally, the Court imposed "a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 within three weeks, failing which the Registry shall issue recovery certificate and thereafter, appropriate proceedings to recover the amount of cost shall be undertaken under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Allows Full Capital Gains Exemption For Seven Row Houses Under Unamended Section 54 | Says 'A Residential House' Includes Plural Units Prior To 2015 Amendment

The Court directed the Registry to: "inform the concerned police authority to arrest the contemnor, Mr. Devesh Bhatt, to execute the present order." It clarified that: "No set-off of the period of incarceration, of approximately 80 days, shall be granted to the contemnor."

Further, the Court ordered that: "the present order [be] conveyed to the Bar Council of Gujarat, Bar Association of High Court, and all other judicial forums of the State." It concluded by quashing the complaint filed by the contemnor against the amicus curiae and made the "RULE absolute to the aforesaid."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Asim J. Pandya, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

For the Respondents: Mr. Kurven K. Desai, Advocate; Ms. Vrunda Shah, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Suo Motu vs. Devesh Bhatt & Anr.

Case Number: R/CR.MA/5207/2011

Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani