“Abusing Lawyer Borders on Criminal Contempt”: Allahabad HC Fines Litigant for Derogatory Phone Call

Taking exception to a litigant’s derogatory remarks against an advocate during a phone conversation, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the comments went beyond personal insult and struck at the dignity of the legal profession, warranting action that “borders on criminal contempt".

During the hearing in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Bano Bibi, a telephonic conversation surfaced between Respondent No. 6, Jang Bahadur, and Advocate Waseem Akhtar, who was representing the petitioner in the tehsil proceedings. The transcript, recorded with the authority of the court’s Registrar General, revealed disparaging and disrespectful language aimed not only at the counsel but also at the legal profession more broadly.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir noted that the respondent's language was not merely personally offensive but reflected contempt for the entire institution of law and the judiciary itself. "Speaking in derogatory terms, about the legal profession, does not affect the profession alone but the entire Judicature of which the Bar is an integral part," court remarked.

It added that "There are not hundreds but thousands of remarks by Courts of Justice reminding Members of the legal profession about their duties towards the litigants, the Court and their adversaries, virtually admonishing them, but very little has been thought about the strains under which the most important part of the judicature, that is to say, the Bar, functions in order to secure justice for the litigants".

Court emphasised that lawyers, who work virtually like soldiers in times of peace to secure justice for citizens, are hurled with words of criticism from all quarters for the slightest human lapse or even matters beyond their control, working as they are under a very strained judicial system.

Although court acknowledged the unconditional remorse expressed by Jang Bahadur in an affidavit, where he undertook never to engage in such conduct again, it emphasized that such acts are serious enough to merit criminal contempt proceedings. The bench ultimately decided against initiating contempt proceedings, opting instead for a strict warning and a penalty.

Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondent: Rs. 10,000 to be paid directly to Advocate Waseem Akhtar as compensation, and Rs. 15,000 to be deposited in the account of the State Legal Services Authority.

Failure to deposit the amount within fifteen days will result in recovery through the District Magistrate as arrears of land revenue, court ordered. 

Further, court directed that the sealed mobile phone, which was used to record the conversation, be returned to the counsel via the Registrar General.

Case Title: Bano Bibi vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Download order here