Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has sentenced an advocate to six months’ imprisonment after he was convicted for contempt of court for making scathing remarks against a judicial officer by inter alia commenting upon her attire and comparing her to a mythical demon.
The division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Devashis Baruah, in a recent order, also prohibited advocate Utpal Goswami from appearing as an advocate in any court under the jurisdiction of the High Court for 15 days.
Notably, the advocate is charged with criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
“The respondent-contemnor has not only made unfounded vitriolic attack on the integrity and impartiality of the learned judicial official concerned, but has also embarked upon character assassination of the said judicial officer. Moreover, the petitioner had also attacked this Court by making disparaging remarks on the selection process of judicial officers by questioning the sanctity of the selection process,” the bench observed.
“The respondent- contemnor has questioned the sanctity of the selection of the judicial officer in the District Judiciary of the State by the Selection Committee of the Gauhati High Court by specifically referring to the “power of money”, “mal-administration”, “taking of undue advantages”, “unlawful relationship”, “predominance of illegal love and affections” and “other wrong practices” during “selection and appointment of judges and magistrates of the district judiciary in Assam”. Thus, the petitioner has interfered with the administration of justice by casting aspersions on the Judges of this Court, Registry and the officials connected with the Appointment Section of this Court,” the court observed.
“Thus, the judiciary in general has been under direct attack by the respondent- contemnor. Therefore, it is apparent that the respondent-contemnor had made scathing and vitriolic attack on the judiciary in general and the concerned judicial officer in particular, which amounts to character assassination of one and all,” it observed.
Goswami had filed a petition under Section 24 CPC for transfer, which was pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jorhat. In the petition, personal insinuations were made upon the concerned judicial officer and above all, ex facie derogatory remark has been made against the judiciary in general and the concerned officer in particular.
The advocate mentioned in the petition that “the additional district judge has been presiding the court by wearing jewellery like a model in ramp and that each and every occasion she tried to overpower/depress the advocates by citing unnecessary case laws and sections of statues without hearing the advocates, and tries to control the courtroom…”
The bench was also of the view that such remarks, by a mature citizen aged 52 years, would encourage other members of the Bar all over the country to use disrespectful and threatening language against judges whenever any unfavourable orders are passed against their interest.
Notably, the district judge, Jorhat had directed the respondent/contemnor to make necessary corrections in the petition, which was apparently refused by the respondent-contemnor. Instead, the respondent- contemnor, in order to brow-beat the district judge, Jorhat issued an advocate’s notice under Section 80 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the sheristadar as well as the District and Sessions Judge, Jorhat.
“The notice was addressed to (i) the then Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, (ii) the then Registrar General of this Court, and (iii) the then Registrar Vigilance of this Court. Amongst others, in the said advocate’s notice issued under Section 80 CPC, the respondent-contemnor had questioned the power of the Sheristadar to refer to legal provision by stating that no administrative officer/ assistant having no legal degree and power can cite law point/ argument on law/ rules,” the order read.
“Furthermore, the respondent-contemnor had also alleged in the said advocate’s notice that the actions of the then learned District Judge and the Sheristadar were not only illegal and immoral, but had also caused social economic loss with mental agony to the clients of the respondent-contemnor and he had justified the necessity of prosecuting the then learned District Judge and the Sheristadar,” it read.
“Therefore, on the ground that the respondent-contemnor had overstepped the limit of fair and bona fide or reasonable criticism, the then learned District Judge, Jorhat had made a reference to this Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondent-contemnor. Resultantly, this contempt petition had been registered and process had been initiated by issuing show cause notice to the respondent-contemnor,” it read.
On receipt of the notice of initiation of contempt proceeding, the respondent-contemnor had filed his affidavit on January 17, 2023 and in paragraph 5 thereof, he had pleaded guilty of the charges.
“The plea of guilty has been extracted herein before. The matter was listed on January 20, 2023 and this Court after taking note of the fact that the respondent-contemnor was appearing in person, had appointed a senior counsel, as amicus curiae in the matter along with another counsel to assist him,” the order stated.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
“Thereafter, in the course of hearing on March 9, 2023, after taking into account the plea of guilty taken by the respondent-contemnor, the consequences of which upon being explained by the Court, a further opportunity was provided to the respondent-contemnor of being heard. However, in the course of hearing, the respondent- contemnor had confirmed his plea of guilty,” it stated.
Accordingly, by order, dated March 9, 2023, the respondent-contemnor was convicted as per the provision of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Also Read | Assam: Parents, domestic help arrested for physically abusing adopted child