Bombay High Court initiates contempt action against 3 lawyers for submitting fabricated news report targeting judge

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has initiated suo motu (on its own) contempt proceedings against three advocates for submitting a fabricated news report casting aspersions on an HC judge, noting that such an act lowers the dignity of the court.

A division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and N R Borkar in its order of January 29 said such “deliberate, motivated and contemptuous act” impairs the administration of justice or tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or lowers the dignity of the court.

The bench said that an application was submitted by one Bhisham Pahuja (also an advocate) through his lawyers Zoheb Merchant and Minal Chandnani, in a petition filed by one Amar Mulchandani, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.

Mulchandani in his petition had sought for the case to be quashed.

The lawyers in the application relied on a purported news clipping that claimed that the HC judge, who was presently hearing the petition, had good relations with Mulchandani and hence the case would be quashed.

The application sought for the petition to be transferred to another bench of HC.

An enquiry was initiated by the police on the directions of the HC into the veracity of the news clipping. The police in its findings submitted to HC said the news report was false and fabricated.

Pahuja, Merchant and Chandnani said they were not aware of this and apologised to the court.

The bench, however, refused to accept their apology and said a lawyer was not a mouthpiece of his or her client and that a lawyer cannot commit any act that would malign a judge or bring disrepute to the institution.

“It is not an attack on the dignity, reputation or honour of an individual Judge but an attack on the authority of the institution and majesty of the law,” the court said.

Such a deliberate, motivated and contemptuous act which impairs the administration of justice or tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or lowers the dignity of the court, it added.

The bench noted that an advocate is an integral part of the judicial administration and as an officer of the court, the advocate is responsible for upholding the dignity of the court, and the majesty of law and preventing any interference in the administration of justice.

“In the instant case, the three members of the Bar have made scurrilous and scandalous imputations against a Judge with a calculated motive of seeking recusal from the matter. The conduct is thoroughly contemptuous,” HC said.

The court held that the three lawyers indulged in making a scandalous attack on the judge to browbeat him to recuse from the matter.

The bench directed the HC’s registry department to issue notices to the three lawyers to show cause as to why the action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against them for having committed criminal contempt.