S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council
“Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the Court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times observe the decorum of the Court room”. – Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Private Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 287.
Recently, the Karnataka High Court has initiated contempt of court proceedings against a lawyer taking note of his behaviour during the court proceedings. It has also referred the matter to the Karnataka State Bar Council. The relevant portion of the order reads thus;
“After passing the order on I.A.No.2/2022, when the learned counsel was requested to argue the matter on merits, since the matter was heard in part on the earlier date, he threw he threw the 5les aghastly stating that he wants to appeal against the order passed on I.A.No.2/2022, counsel for the petitioner raised his voice, spoke in a harsh manner and made derogative remarks against the Court stating that “he is not bothered about the consequences”. This Court, inspite of his rude behaviour on several occasions, had ignored his arrogance and had accommodated his presence before the Court. Petitioner’s counsel has been consistently protracting the proceedings by 5ling several applications, which is evident from the order sheet.
Upon consideration of the events that transpired during the proceedings of the instant case, the Court observes with grave concern, the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel, Sri M.Veerbhadraiah, which warrants initiation of contempt proceedings suo motu. The Court notes the following:
(i) Misbehavior: Throwing his 5les ghastly in dismay after rejection of IA 2/2022.
(ii) Arrogance: Using singular language towards the Bench with a directive voice and inspite of the Court warning him to mind his behaviour, he mentioned “least bothered of the consequences” and left the Court in sheer anger throwing the 5les.
(iii) Backtalk: Talking in loud voice and refusing to argue the matter on merits despite repetitive request from the Court as the matter was argued on merits before hearing I.A.No. 2/2022.
(iv) Violation of Court Rules: Constantly interrupting the Court proceedings while the Court was passing orders.
The act and conduct of the advocate tends to undermine the dignity of the Court and hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice. The cumulative acts of the advocate would amount to undermine the dignity and majesty of the Court apart from interference with the court’s normal proceedings and procedures.
The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to take necessary steps to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner’s counsel, Sri M.Veerabhadraiah under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by placing this order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
This Court deems it appropriate to forward copy of this order to the President, State Bar Council, through the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.” (emphasis by me)
Earlier to this, the High Court had initiated contempt of court proceedings against an young lawyer and dealt with him firmly. The relevant portion of the order in that case reads thus;
“Before parting with this case, this Court despite hesitance, has felt it inevitable to record the irreprehensible conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.B.S.Manian while conducting this case. A little background of events that unfolded yesterday in another writ petition namely, W.P.No.8450/2022 where Mr. K.B.S. Manian was the counsel for the petitioner, deserves mention. The learned counsel Mr. K.B.S. Manian was arguing the case at an extremely unbearable raised voice mocking at the advocates appearing for the other side. The attempts of the Court to keep his voice low only emboldened him to raise his voice further. After a prolonged verbal duel, W.P.No.8450/2020 was adjourned to 24.08.2022. Today, when this writ petition was taken up, suddenly Mr. K.B.S. Manian had kept his voice so low that we could barely hear him and Mr. Prakash T. Hebbar, who had joined through video conference, informed the Court that he could not hear Mr. K.B.S. Manian. At that stage, Mr. K.B.S. Manian had to be told to speak into the mike. After hearing him, Mr. Prakash T. Hebbar argued stating that the Trial Court had not rejected the application on merits but was rejected due to the default in appearance by the counsel. He however contended that he would have no objection for restoration of the application. Mr. K.B.S. Manian without any provocation stood up and claimed that “I do not want any concession from him. I will argue the case and you (referring to the Court) decide it”. At this stage, the Court asked him what is there to argue Mr. K.B.S. Manian stared at the Court and asked “Can’t you (referring to the Court) decide this case on merits? I have come fully prepared with a long list of judgments. Yesterday you (referring to the Court) did not allow me to address my arguments and today you (referring to the Court) are forcing me to accept what he says”. The Court informed him that yesterday’s happenings are forgotten and told him that he can make a good Advocate provided he keeps his anger in control. For this he responded that “I don’t need a certificate from you (referring to the Court). I am what I am”. Realising that this is an absolute waste of time, the writ petition was taken up for consideration and allowed. Mr. K.B.S. Manian banged his file so hard that everyone in the Court were stunned. The Court scorned his conduct, to which he responded that he was hammered by many Judges and that he can’t be cowed down anymore.
Since the conduct of Mr. K.B.S. Manian was an overspill of his annoying behaviour exhibited in W.P.No.8450/2022 that was listed before the Court yesterday, the events that occurred in that writ petition also deserve to be mentioned. In that case, the Trial Court had refused to issue a commission to examine a witness to a Will, who was suffering from ailments of the heart and as per the opinion of a Cardiologist, the man’s heart was functioning only upto 24% and was therefore, advised not to venture out of his house. The Trial Court directed that instead of this witness, another attesting witness could be examined, which was done. However, his cross- examination was deferred at the request of the defendants on the premise that both the witness would be cross- examined on the same day. At that stage, an application was filed to appoint a commission for recording the statement of the witness, which was opposed and the trial Court rejected it. This was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8450/2022, where Mr. K.B.S. Manian was representing the petitioner. Soon after, Mr. K.B.S. Manian howlingly opened his arguments, the Court asked him to sober down but he was in no mood to listen and spewed out thundering decibels of sound in the Court and accused the advocate for the other side of delaying the proceedings so that the witness dies in the process. In order to diffuse the situation, the Court turned to Mr. D.L.N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel, who was leading the counsel for the respondent, to know why a commission should not be issued. At that stage, Mr. D.L.N. Rao stated that there should be no difficulty for appointment of a commission and suggested that in view of the sensitive health condition of the witness, a doctor of the choice of the witness should also be present to deal with any untoward event. Mr. K.B.S. Manian flared up and chided “who is he to suggest that a doctor should be present?” He started ridiculing Mr. D.L.N. Rao asking him his age and how he could argue sheepishly without checking the facts from his briefing counsel. He yelled at Mr. D.L.N. Rao and claimed that if he argued further, then Mr. D.L.N. Rao has to tender an unconditional apology to him and his client. When the Court reprimanded him to keep his voice low, he chided the Court saying that all other Judges are overawed by his forceful submissions and this was the only Court which felt otherwise. At this stage, Mr. D.L.N. Rao, lost his cool and damned him and thud came an audacious response from Mr. K.B.S. Manian “Sir Who made you a Senior Counsel?” He then turned to the Court and said “What kind of Senior Counsel are we producing?” The Court was absolutely shell shocked by the abominable behaviour of Mr. K.B.S. Manian and had to sit through upto 5-45 p.m. attempting to convince him to accept the suggestion made by the learned Senior Counsel. W.P.No.8450/2022 was adjourned to 24.08.2022 for obtaining the consent of Dr. Srinivas, who had given his opinion about the health condition of the witness.
The overbearing conduct of Mr. K.B.S. Manian forced the Court to ponder whether this is a solitary outburst or does he do the same before other Judges of this Court. When he was informed that his conduct clearly amounted to contempt, he rebuked and said “You (referring to the Court) have the power. You (referring to the court) do whatever you want.” Going by the way Mr.
K.B.S. Manian has conducted himself before this Court on two consecutive dates, this Court can assess the way in which Mr. K.B.S. Manian must have treated the Judges in the Trial Court. This Court is of the clear view that the conduct of Mr. K.B.S. Manian, more particularly, shaming the Senior Advocate in front of a large number of young lawyers and pointing to the Court “What kind of Senior Counsel are we producing?” and referring to the Court as “you” and chiding the Court “Can’t you decide the case?” and similar such utterances digressing from the issue in controversy which the Court cannot immediately recollect and howling at the top of his voice, is contumacious and demeans the authority of the Court, apart from wastage of precious time of the Court. Hence, he deserves to be proceeded against, else it would be a licence for him to indulge in such abhorrent behaviour. Hence, this Court takes cognizance of the contempt committed by Mr. K.B.S. Manian under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
The Registry is directed to place this order before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders for placing it before the Bench having roster to deal with the case. The Registrar General shall file appropriate petition before the Bench as provided in law.
The Registry is also directed to place this order before the Full Court to know whether Mr. K.B.S. Manian has indulged in similar such behaviour before the other Hon’ble Judges of this Court and if yes, to decide the action to be taken.”
It seems this order was recalled after apology was tendered by the counsel. But what the Judge did was the perfect way of dealing with Legal Bullys in the garb of Advocacy.
When contempt action is initiated by the judges, they do it to preserve the institution of justice and certainly not to show their might. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana said in M.B. Sanghi v High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 1991 SCC (Cri) 897 observes;
“When a member of bar is required to be punished for use of contemptuous language it is highly painful it pleases none but painful duties have to be performed to uphold the honour and dignity of the individual Judge and his office and the prestige of the institution. Courts are generally slow in using their contempt jurisdiction against erring members of the profession in the hope that the concerned Bar Council will chasten its member for failure to maintain proper ethical norms.”
Coming to the issue, Bar Councils often receive such complaints from the Judges/Courts with copy of the judicial orders. Courts including the constitutional courts have no power to suspend the license of an advocate. The Supreme Court has clarified this. The power exclusively vests with the Bar Councils.
Sitting in the Disciplinary Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council I have come across two cases where the Courts, after recording the conduct of the Advocates, referred the matter to the Bar Council for disciplinary action.
When the proceedings are initiated by the Bar Council, there is no one from the judicial side to prosecute or conduct the cases. When the Advocates strongly deny their utterances or extreme conduct, it becomes very difficult for the Disciplinary Committee to take a decision. In one case, the Advocate strongly denied the allegations and took serious objections for relying on the court order as a conclusive proof of professional misconduct. He also filed affidavit accusing the Judge of overreacting.
An Advocate owes three duties. (1) duty towards his client (2) duty towards his colleague and (3) duty towards the Court. Violations of any/all constitute professional misconduct and the Bar Council is empowered to take appropriate action. In the first two cases, it is comparatively easy to decide the matter since the complainant presents the case with documents etc. In the third category of cases, there is a practical difficulty. The Disciplinary Authority has to take the judicial order as a conclusive proof of professional misconduct since there is no one to present the case further. This may not be correct since even in contempt of court proceedings, the matter will be tried further and the Courts through the Registrar engage a counsel to argue. Ultimately, there is a possibility of the entire proceedings being dropped. Before the Bar Council, no one from the Civil Court or the High Court represent except conveying the order of the Court. This would pose a serious practical difficulty. The High Court cannot be expected to engage a counsel to present the case and argue before the Bar Council.
Moreover, there would be parallel proceedings; one before the Court and another before the Bar Council which again might pose practical and logical difficulties.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Section 24A of the Advocates Act deals with disqualification for enrolment. Sub-section (1) says that no person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Supreme Court has interpreted that conviction in contempt of court proceedings also falls under this Section and it does apply to a practicing advocate.
Hence, when an Advocate’s behaviour amounts to contempt of court, the court shall proceed with the matter to its logical end. When the Advocate is convicted in contempt proceedings, the Bar Council can exercise the power under Section 24A and remove his name from the rolls of the Bar Council. This is a better way to deal with the issue.
No lawyer can be/shall be allowed to pose a threat to the institution of judiciary. The courts shall deal with such elements with firm hand. The second case mentioned above shows the utter display of arrogance and a clear attempt to bring the institution of judiciary to disrepute. The Bar Councils will certainly step-in to take appropriate action. But in my view, it can be done after the conviction is ordered under Section 24A of the Advocates Act.
There may be cases where utter contempt is committed on the face of the Court like assaulting a judicial officer or a colleague etc. There might be cases where the act of bullying is recorded on electronic device officially maintained by the Courts. Wherever the act of criminal intimidation is recorded in audio and video mode officially maintained by the Courts, the same can also be forwarded to the Bar Council. This becomes conclusive proof which cannot be denied by the Advocates during the disciplinary proceedings. They fall under extreme category of cases and the Bar Council can certainly take suo motu action, suspend the lawyer and ultimately remove his name from the rolls.
In conclusion, the power to punish for contempt of court entrusted with the Civil and Constitutional Courts is enormous. Instead of referring the matter to the Bar Councils, the Courts shall deal with “Legal Bullies” firmly and convict them. The Bar Councils can then remove the names of such lawyers from its rolls.
Daksha Legal 