Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently initiated contempt proceedings against three lawyers for bringing a false news report before the judge, casting aspersions on the integrity of the judge and compelling him to recuse from the case.

A division bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar initiated contempt proceedings against three lawyers, including a junior lawyer.

The contempt proceedings were initiated after Advocate Zoheb Merchant, a junior advocate, filed an application along with a news clipping on behalf of his client Bhishma Pahuja, who is also an advocate.

The intervention application was filed in a petition by Amar Mulchandani seeking to quash a case against him related to money laundering.

The news clipping alleged that a high court judge was likely to grant bail to Mulchandani because of his friendship with Justice Nitin Sambre.

A complaint was filed with the Chief Justice of the high court, along with the news report, seeking directions to withdraw the matter from Justice Sambre.

After Justice Sambre brought the application to his attention, he sought an explanation from Merchant and his senior, Minal Chandnani.

Both of them filed an affidavit apologizing to the judge. However, Justice Sambre deferred the bail hearing and directed the police commissioner to inquire into the publisher and editor who supposedly published the news.

Upon investigation, it was found that the newspaper had never carried the article attached by the lawyers in their application. Merchant and Chandnani claimed that the news report was given to them by their client.

However, the division bench initiated the contempt proceedings while noting that a lawyer cannot join hands with his client in his professional capacity to malign the judge and bring disrepute to the institution.

“A lawyer is not a mouthpiece of his client. He cannot join hands with his client in his professional capacity to malign the Judge and bring disrepute to the institution. The fact that he is a young lawyer, does not give him a license to pollute the stream of justice. On the contrary, being an officer of the Court he is under an obligation to advise his client against making any baseless and unwarranted remarks,” the order reads.

The bench, while issuing contempt notices to the lawyers, said that such contemptuous acts, which impair the administration of justice, fall within the definition of contempt of court.

“Such deliberate, motivated and contemptuous act, which impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute or lowers the dignity of the court fall within the definition of criminal contempt under Contempt of Courts Act,” the order states.

Case title: Amar Mulchandani vs ED