Persistent Defiance, Disruptive Misconduct, and Abusive Remarks Against Judges: Allahabad High Court Sentences Advocate to Six Months’ Imprisonment, Issues Notice for Three-Year Practice Ban
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh sentenced an advocate to six months’ simple imprisonment and issued further directions restraining him from practicing before the Court. The judgment, dated April 10, 2025, arises from criminal contempt proceedings against the contemnor, an advocate who engaged in multiple instances of disruptive and abusive conduct within the courtroom.
The court ordered the contemnor to surrender within four weeks and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000, with an additional month’s imprisonment in case of default. Further, notice was issued under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules regarding a three-year bar on the contemnor’s appearance before the High Court.
The contempt proceedings originated from the contemnor's conduct on August 18, 2021, when he entered the courtroom dressed in civil attire with an unbuttoned shirt. Upon being asked by the Court to dress appropriately, he refused, stating he had challenged the Bar Council Rules prescribing a dress code for lawyers. When the Court directed him to wear at least a decent dress, the contemnor questioned the definition of "decent dress" and refused to comply. The judgment records that he used abusive language and declared, "the Judges were behaving like goondas," thereby scandalizing the Court and disturbing proceedings.
The contempt application further noted an earlier incident on August 16, 2021, in which the contemnor similarly entered the courtroom without uniform during the hearing of a PIL and interrupted proceedings. He insisted on addressing the Court without proper attire, again claiming he had challenged the Bar Council rules.
The Court noted that these incidents followed a pattern of misconduct by the contemnor spanning nearly two decades. The judgment enumerated several past instances:
- In 2003, a PIL filed by him was dismissed with costs for being frivolous.
- In 2006, three separate criminal contempt cases were initiated due to his courtroom behaviour.
- In 2011 and 2012, petitions filed by him were dismissed by the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court respectively, the latter imposing a cost of Rs. 1,00,000.
- In 2013, he used abusive language in court, resulting in Contempt Application No. 2745 of 2013.
- In 2016, he filed a petition making scandalous allegations relating to the sesquicentennial celebrations of the High Court.
- In 2017, contempt proceedings resulted in a sentence of three months’ imprisonment and a two-year ban from the Court premises. Though the Supreme Court later suspended the sentence, it maintained the ban.
Despite these prior warnings and punishments, the contemnor continued to act in defiance of court decorum, refusing to express remorse or offer any apology. The present proceedings arose from his continued defiance on August 18, 2021, and the Court found no mitigating factors to justify leniency.
The contemnor raised a preliminary objection under Section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, asserting that only the Bench that initiated the contempt could try the case. However, the Court rejected this, stating that since both judges of the original Bench had been transferred, the current Bench, assigned criminal contempt matters, was competent to hear the case.
The Court observed that the contemnor’s behaviour amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) and 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for scandalizing the authority of the Court and interfering with judicial proceedings.
Referring to the August 18, 2021 incident, the Court recorded: "Contemnor escalated his misconduct by using abusive and scandalous language in open Court, including the highly offensive and derogatory remark that 'the Judges are behaving like goondas'." It noted this was done in the presence of other advocates and litigants, thereby undermining the dignity of the Court.
Citing precedent, the Court stated: "Freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions. Maintenance of dignity of courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a democratic set-up." It referred to Arundhati Roy, In Re, (2002) 3 SCC 343 and Ajay Kumar Pandey, In Re, (1996) SCC (Cri) 1391 to affirm the principle that scandalizing the judiciary amounts to contempt.
The Court further recorded: "Contemnor, being a senior member of the Awadh Bar Association, was fully aware that he was required to be properly dressed in Court with his shirt properly buttoned, which he refused to do even on being asked by the Court and used abusive language against the Judges."
Regarding the August 16, 2021 incident, the Court noted: "Contemnor, without being a party to the proceedings, forcefully entered the courtroom and reached podium without uniform and started shouting without leave of Court." It observed that such behaviour demonstrated intent to disrupt proceedings.
On persistent misconduct, the Court stated: "He continues to disregard orders of the Court, refuses to acknowledge the error of his ways, and shows no signs of reform."
Based on the findings, the Court ordered:
- "The contemnor is sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-. In case of failure to pay the fine within one month from today, the contemnor shall undergo further imprisonment of one month."
- "Contemnor is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow within four weeks from the date of this judgment to serve the sentence imposed herein."
- "We also find it a fit case where the contemnor should be restrained from practicing in the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for a period of three years. Hence, a notice is given to the contemnor under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(3) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as to why he should not be debarred from practicing before the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for the aforementioned period."
The contemnor is directed to submit his reply by May 1, 2025, and remain present in court on the scheduled date.
Upon pronouncement of the judgment in Court, the contemnor orally prayed for a certificate of leave to appeal under Article 134(A) of the Constitution of India. The said prayer stands rejected
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Asok Pande
Case Number: CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. 1493 of 2021
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Brij Raj Singh
[Read/Download order]
