Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the finding of contempt as recorded against an advocate practicing before the Madras High Court.

A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M Trivedi also upheld the order of debarment from practicing for a period of one year, as passed by the Madras High Court, holding it to be in accordance with the judgment of the Top Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court.

Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicted one PR Adikesavan under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to two weeks of simple imprisonment.

This order was passed by the division bench after Adikesavan and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the non-bailable warrant issued against Adikesavan by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in insolvency proceedings initiated against him.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police had brought the incident to the notice of the Registrar General of the Madras High Court. On perusing the video clippings of the incident, a Single Judge of the High Court had initiated contempt proceedings against Adikesavan under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926.

Later, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court found that a prima facie case had been made out against Adikesavan and issued notice.

The said proceedings were adjourned by the Division Bench on five occasions at Adikesavan's behest. He also filed ‘sub-applications’ before the next date of hearing seeking issuance of summons to the Single Judge who issued the warrant for examining her as a witness in the contempt case and another application for one of the judges on the Division Bench to recuse from the hearing.

Later, the said applications were taken back and the impugned order was passed by the High Court holding Adikesavan guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him to undergo two weeks of simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 2000.

Senior Advocate KK Mani, appearing for Adikesavan submitted before the top court that he had submitted an apology and the same should be accepted.

"The behaviour and conduct of the appellant, who is a member of the Bar has been thoroughly contemptuous. There was a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice when the non-bailable warrant was sought to be served on him by the competent police officials, which has been recorded in the video footage. The appellant is complicit in the obstruction of justice...", observed the top court.

Court further noted that wanton allegations had been levelled against the Single Judge of the Madras High Court who issued the non-bailable warrant and a recusal was sought of one of the Judges hearing the proceedings thereafter on thoroughly improper grounds.

"Five adjournments were sought by the appellant before the Madras High Court, delaying the conclusion of the proceedings only to later file sub-applications imputing allegations against two Judges of the Madras High Court. The appellant later also took back the sub-applications from the registry and did not re-present them. The appellant has no respect for the administration of justice....", remarked the top court while upholding the contempt findings.

Case Title: P R Adikesavan vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras and Another