Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A lawyer sentenced to six months imprisonment for criminal contempt by the Delhi High Court has submitted an unconditional apology to the court.

The lawyer, currently in custody after being found guilty on January 9, expressed that there was no intention to scandalize judges and assured the court of exercising caution in the future.

The lawyer filed an affidavit before a bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur, complying with the Supreme Court's direction. The Supreme Court is where the lawyer had appealed against the conviction and sentence in the contempt case.

According to the high court's order on Tuesday this week, the affidavit presented an apology where the lawyer stated that the allegations were unintentional, and henceforth, he would be more cautious to avoid such mistakes.

The affidavit emphasized the unintentional nature of the error, claiming it was made in pursuit of justice. The high court acknowledged the affidavit, and the matter is to be sent to the Supreme Court promptly.

In addition to the six-month jail term, the high court had imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the lawyer and directed his custody to be handed over to the superintendent of Tihar jail.

The Supreme Court, during the lawyer's plea for an apology on January 12, suggested that his request could be considered if he individually files an unconditional apology affidavit before the concerned judges of the high court and the district judiciary mentioned in his allegations. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on January 19.

"Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the contemnor has handed over an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology wherein he stated that he had not intended to scandalise a judge, and henceforth, he will be taking extra care or will be extra cautious of the said mistake committed by him," the court noted. 

The contempt case originated when the lawyer filed a plea in July 2022, accusing several judges of acting arbitrarily, whimsically, or with bias. The single-judge bench issued a contempt notice, and the matter was transferred to a division bench.

The high court, in its verdict, stressed the necessity of curbing such actions by an officer of the court and had given the lawyer an opportunity to apologize, which he declined, maintaining his stance against the judges.

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Virendra Singh Advocate