NEW DELHI: Sending out a strong message that no one would be allowed to undermine the integrity and decorum of
judicial institutions
, the
Supreme Court on Friday slammed a lawyer for getting into spat with judges in Kerala HC and said that imprisonment of three months for contempt was “too less”.
“We can tolerate everything but not anything which is against the integrity and decorum of the judicial institutions,” a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Ashok Bhushan said on a plea of the lawyer challenging
Kerala High Court
decision to convict him for
contempt of court
.
The HC had in November passed the order against advocate
C K Mohanan
followed a verbal altercation between him and the bench over his client’s direct appeal to the court to change his lawyer.
He was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and was directed to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 after he refused to apologise for his behaviour.
Hoping to get relief against HC order, the lawyer approached the apex court but found himself at the receiving end with Supreme Court strongly disapproved his conduct before HC. Although the bench agreed to hear his plea but on the issue whether quantum of punishment awarded by HC needed to be increased.
“We are of the view that three months jail term was too less. You should go to jail for a longer period,” the bench said.
A contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both
The bench strongly disapproved his behaviour before the high court and said that it was a fit case to convict him for contempt. It directed the lawyer to pay the fine directed by HC and kept the matter pending to adjudicate on the jail term to be awarded to him. The apex court had earlier exempted him from surrendering till it took a final call on the quantum of sentence.
“The judicial institution is strong enough to withstand a thousand stones. But we will not allow a single stone to be thrown at it,” the bench said.
The incidents that led to initiation of contempt proceedings took place on October 24 when the petitioner in a habeas corpus case represented by Mohanan told the HC in person that he did not wish to engage him any longer. The lawyer then "raised objection in a loud voice in the open court" when the petitioner's statement was brought to his notice by the court.
The lawyer had told the court that the petitioner had not approached him and that it is a private matter between his client and himself. He told the bench that courts should not encourage the 'backdoor practice' of clients approaching the court to change the counsel midway without approaching the concerned lawyer first.
The HC noted in its order that the lawyer should have conceded to the client's demand for change of lawyer with grace. But instead of upholding the traditions of the noble profession, the advocate had raised his voice even when an order was being dictated, the court had said.