CJI replaces Justices L. Nageshwar Rao and Aniruddha Bose

CJI withdraws case from Justices L. Nageshwar Rao and Aniruddha Bose after complaint alleging bias, perjury and conspiracy by the five Judges.

It is First time in the Supreme Court history when the case in Supreme Court is withdrawn from one bench and transferred to another Bench on such ground.

The serious allegations of perjury, forgery, tampering and destroying of court records and contempt of binding precedents were made on affidavit and  proved from the information given by the office of CJI under RTI.

The CJI assigned the case to another bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy.

Request of Adv. Prashant Bhushan to transfer case from the court of Justice Arun Mishra was not accepted by the CJI  in a similar contempt case.

In a similar situation earlier  Justice Deepak Gupta refused to recuse from the case. But now the gravity and substance of the case is such that the CJI could not ignore it.

The Supreme Court registry’s letter exposed that the accused Judges Aniruddha Bose & Deepak Gupta (retd.) has fabricated false evidences and used it in their judgment dated 27.04.2020 to defame the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

More serious part of the case is that the said unlawful judgment is already overruled by the larger Bench in Prashant Bhushan’s case. But Justice Aniruddha Bose refused to accept the larger Bench finding and dismissed the review without any reasoning and thereby committed contempt of the larger bench.

The victim Rashid Khan Pathan has filed two petitions one is contempt and other isperjury petition against the five Judges of the Supreme Court along with co-conspirator Sr. Adv. Siddharth Luthra, Adv. Milind Sathe and Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla.

Many Bar Associations came in support of the petitioner on the issue of fair investigation and prosecution of the guilty Judges or the petitioner if his allegations are found to be incorrect.

Petitioner also wrote one letter on 30.03.2021 to all judges of the Supreme Court pointing out the offences by the said Judges and requesting to discharge their duties in saving the pure stream of justice and the the Supreme Court by supporting enquiry, prosecution  and resignation of accused Judges. The title subject of the above  said letter dated 30.03.2021  is as under;

            

“(i) Appeal to inner conscience of all Hon’ble Judges for exercising their moral, ethical and constitutional duty to get the allegations against perjurer Judges investigated, tried and punished and if my allegations are not found to be true, then to initiate prosecution under perjury and contempt against me.

              (ii) Judicial obstinacy and grossest contempt by Justice Aniruddha Bose in refusing to accept that the judgment delivered by him (alongwith Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta) has been overruled by three Judge Bench.

                          ……….

38. I earnestly hope and expect that all the ethical, honest and judicial judges will definitely take a firm stand and they will stand by the side of truth and justice. They will not be swayed by the ‘intellectual dishonesty’, ‘sophistry’ and ‘straw man fallacy’ of the accused and their supporters.

39. I believe and expect that, your good self may convince the tainted  Judges to voluntarily resign and also convince the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to take immediate action by constituting a larger Bench having Judges like Justices Shri. Uday Lalit, Shri. A. M. Khanwilkar, Shri. Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Shri. Mohan M. Shantanagoudar etc. and definitely excluding the accused Judges.”

The contempt petition filed against Judges is numbered as under;

 (i)  Application under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, filed against Justice Aniruddha Bose & Ors.

[Bearing M. A. No. 5305 of 2021 in Re: Vijay Kurle S.M.C.P.[Cri) No. 02 of 2019]

(ii) Contempt Petition Provisional Application No. 5199 of 2021 between Rashid Khan Vs. Justice Aniruddha Bose & Ors.

After receipt of said letter by the CJI and all the Judges,  on 15.04.2021 the case for extension of the interim relief filed by the petitioner in Re: Vijay Kurle was not listed before the Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Aniruddha Bose and the matter was assigned to the Bench of  Justice Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy who on the same day extended the interim relief by keeping other contentions open.

 It seems that the CJI has taken the issue with some seriousness and directly transferred the case even before the issue came for the stage of hearing on recusal application.

This is a first step by CJI. Soon we can expect the prosecution of the accused Judges.

2. PRAYERS IN THE PERJURY PETITION

2.1. The prayers in the said Perjury  Petition are as under;

 “i) To hear this petition alongwith the contempt petition Diary No. Provisional Application No 5199/2021 filed against the accused judges;

ii) To hold that, in view of law laid down in catena of decision and more particularly in Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri.L.J. 800, K.Rama Reddy Vs State 1998(3) ALD 305, the fabrication of evidence and tempering of Court record to falsely implicate and sentence a citizen is not a part of official duty of a Judge and such Judge cannot claim  any protection from persecution;

iii) To hold that as per section 3 (2) of Judicial officers protection Act, 1985 and in view of law laid down in Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane Vs State 2003 Cri.L.J. 2003, the Supreme Court is having power to direct the prosecution of Judge involved in utter disregard and defiance to the rights of the citizen as well as the provisions of the law and this being the similar case this Hon’ble Court is empowered to pass appropriate prosecution;

iv) To hold that, as per law laid down by the Constitution Bench and followed in Perumal vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, and also in view of the law laid down in Raman Lal vs. State 2001 Cr. L. J. 800, when the judge of a constitutional court is involved in a conspiracy to falsely implicate the petitioner then the matter should be investigated and the court cannot draw any interpretation which makes the petitioner remediless;

v) To record a finding as per Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code that as per record of the office of Chief Justice of India it is clear that, the then Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogai on 25.03.2019, found that the letter dated 23.03.2019 require no consideration and therefore passed the remark ‘filed’ and the case was closed.

But the accused Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta & Justice Aniruddha Bose fabricated false evidence in the name of the Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogai that he forwarded the said communication to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and used said fabricated false evidence in the court proceedings with ulterior motive to convict the petitioner and in their order dated 27.04.2020 made a categorical false statement that the said letter dated 23.03.2019 was forwarded by the then Chief Justice of India to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

They also created many false evidences, destroyed the documents from the Court record and committed offences as explained in concluding paragraph No. 13.

This was done with ulterior purposes to save Justice Rohinton  Fali Nariman, Justice Vineet Saran , Adv. Milind Sathe, Adv. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwala & Ors.

They misused their power with malafide intention to secure conviction of the Petitioner in a vitiated and frivolous charge of contempt.

Hence, they all are liable to be prosecuted under section of IPC as per provisions under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code as has been ruled in the case of Govind Mehta AIR 1971 SC 1708, K. Rama Reddy 1998 (3) ALD 305, Raman Lal 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226. 

vi) Direction to CBI to investigate and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court and take appropriate action as per law laid down in Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51, ABCD Vs. Union of Indai (2020) 2 SCC 52,  Sanjeev Mittal Vs. State 2011 RCR (Cri) (7) 211.

vii) To further hold that the conduct of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose in their refusal to review the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2020  even if said judgment is partly overruled by the larger Bench and even if the falsity, dishonesty, fabrication of record and the violation of various binding precedents is brought to their notice, is grossest of grossest contempt and also a serious offence under Section 220, 219, 218, 201, 202, 203 r/w 120(B) & 34 etc of IPC and therefore, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose are liable to be prosecuted and punished in same manner as has been done by the Constitution Bench in the case of Re C. S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 .

viii)  Appropriate direction to secretary General of the Supreme Court as per provision of section 340 of Cr. P. C. and ruled by the full Bench in Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan’s case 2019 SCC OnLine  SC 51 for lodging a complaint and persuing the trial of Criminal Offences before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi under section 191, 192, 193, 196, 167, 166, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 218, 219, 220, 211, 466, 471, 474 r/w 120 (B) & 34 of Indian Penal Code.

ix) To hold that the ‘In- House- Procedure’ set up by this Hon’ble Court as explained in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' (2015) 4 SCC 91, is different and independent and cannot override the provisions of section 340 of Cr.P.C., when the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court commits serious offences against administration of justice and if any petition is filed regarding serious offences against administration of justice by the Judge of  the Supreme Court then as per law laid down in para 60 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, the court is bound to examine the said petition;

x) Pass any other order in favor of the Applicant which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.  PRAYERS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION

3.1. The prayers in the said Perjury Petition are as under;

“a) To record a finding that, if any Judge of any Court including Judge of the Supreme Court, despite being shown the binding precedents, deliberately refuse to follow the said legal position and took a view contrary to the view laid down in binding precedents of Larger Benches or even Co-ordinate Benches or he deliberately tampers the records of the case or deliberately uses false evidence as genuine in the judgment, then such Judge is liable for action under Contempt of Court Act and any citizen can file Contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court as per law laid down in (i) Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1  (ii) Badrakanta Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446 (iii) Legrand Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 146.

b) To record a finding that, alleged contemnors Shri. Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta (No.1), Shri Justice Aniruddha Bose (No.2), Adv. Siddharth Luthra (No.3), Justice L. Nageshwar Rao (No.4), Justice Rohinton Nariman (No.5) and Justice Vineet Saran (No.6) with full knowledge of binding precedents of Larger Benches taken a view against the law and ratio laid down by the Larger Benches of this Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been explained in detail in the memo of the present petition and thereby undermined the majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court and eroded the facet of rule of law. Their act is calculated to create confusion and impair the constitutional mandate of Article 141. It is calculated not only to undermine the respect of the Supreme Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.

Therefore, alleged contemnor No.1, 2 & 3 are guilty of 23 offences of deliberate and willful disregard of the laws laid down by larger benches of the Supreme Court and it amounts to Civil Contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punish them accordingly.

c) To hold that, the conduct of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose in sticking to the judgment dated 27.04.2020 even if it is overruled by the larger bench in Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745, with regard to the mandatory compliance of guidelines in P.N.Duda’s case (Supra) before cognizance of criminal contempt amounts to grossest contempt, judicial obstinacy and ex-facie proves bias as per law laid down in Shivanand Pathak Vs. State of W.B. AIR 1998 SCW 1908, The Official Liquidator, Visianagaram Mining Company, Limited, VisagapatamAIR 1952 Mad 136, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra (2005) 2 SCC 673.

d) To record a finding that, the guidelines given by Justice Rang Nathan in concurring Judgment in P.N.Duda’s case are binding and cannot be said to be obiter in view of law laid down in Kaikhosrou Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 394, State of Kerala Vs. M. S. Mani (2001) 8 SCC 82, and Full Bench in Bal Thackrey’s Case (2005) 1 SCC 254, Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745, and therefore the observations by alleged contemnors No. 1 and 2 in their judgment dated 27.04.2020 are deliberate and  grossly contemptuous and deserves strict action in addition to the other deliberate contempt.

e) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

 

3. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1.1. As per order dated 12.03.2019 the Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman & Justice Vineet Saran convicted a lawyer for his alleged inappropriate argument on earlier date. The conviction was without issuing any show cause notice without any trial and without giving any opportunity to the said lawyer an opportunity to explain his stand.

It was grossly illegal for the very reason that it was against the binding precedent by Full Bench in Dr. L.P. Mishra’s case (1998) 7 SCC 379, Ramesh Maharaj’s case (1978) 2 WLR 902 which mandates that no advocates or any person can be sentenced without issuing show-cause notice clearly mentioning the special charge and without giving him an opportunity to explain his stand.

The Nine Judge bench of US Supreme Court had termed such judgments as substantial fraud and such judgment should not be respected by any Court in the world. It observed thus;

“In common sense and common honesty, the sentence of the tribunal which first punishes and then hears the party, castigatque, auditque. Such sentences 'as mere mockeries, and as in no just sense judicial proceedings;' and are charecterized they 'ought to be deemed, both ex directo in rem and collaterally, to be mere arbitrary edicts or substantial frauds.'  ” [Windsor 93 US 274 (1876) Nine Judge Bench of Supreme Court.] Windsor Vs. Mcevigh (1876) 93 US 274, In Re: Terry 1888 SCC OnLine US SC 238.

1.2. Justice R.F. Nariman also committed grave illegality by hearing a case related with his father Adv. Fali Nariman. He is disqualified to hear the case as has been ruled by the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. U.O.I. (2016) 4665 SCC 808, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, State Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770. It is also against the Judges Ethics Code.

1.3. Indian Bar Association’s State President of Maharashtra & Goa, Adv. Vijay Kurle raised voice against such injustice done to a lawyer.

He lodged a complaint on 20.03.2019 before Hon’ble President of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

1.4. Since the offences against administration of justice were ex-facie clear and there was a reasonable apprehension in the minds of all the members of the Bar that such bad precedents may be used against them. Therefore any of advocate was duty bound to file compliant against the accused Judges. There is a specific provision in Bar Council Rules mandating the advocates to lodge the complaint against the Judges when there is a reasonable ground for the same. Specific law is laid down in R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 106.

Also as per Sec. 51 (A) (h) of the constitution of India, it is a duty of every citizen to expose the malpractices in judiciary including the illegalities committed by the judge of a Supreme Court.

[Indirect Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281, Subramanian Swamy Vs Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3365, Lalita Kalita (2008) 1 Gau Lt 800, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, Bathina R. Reddy Vs. State AIR 1952 SC 149]

1.5. The Supreme Court had set-up the ‘In-House-Procedure’ for enquiry complaint against Supreme Court & High Court Judges. [Additional District and Session Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar (2015) 1 SCC (LS) 799]

1.6. Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan, National secretary of Human Rights Secuirty Council, (Applicant) also filed one complaint on 19.03.2019, against justices Rohinton F. Nariman & Vineet Saran for their misuse of power to help an accused husband in utter disregard and defiance of the binding precedents of constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

1.7. After getting the knowledge of the said complaints, Adv. Milind Sathe, the close associates of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, from Bombay tried to get support from Supreme Court Bar Association & Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to nullify the effect of watertight complaint lodged by the Indian Bar Association’s State President.

But the members from Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) & Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, Bar Council of India, refused to support the said gross illegal act of the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman in convicting an advocate without trial.

(On the other hand around 149 advocates from Supreme Court marked their appearance on behalf of the respondent.)

1.9. Said Adv. Milind Sathe of Bombay Bar Association & Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla of BILS who are close to Justice R.F. Nariman hatched the conspiracy and in their personal capacity they wrote one letter dated 23.03.2019 Letter. It was addressed to the Hon’ble President of India & Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

The only prayer in the said representation was to not to take any action against Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran on the complaint given by Adv. Vijay Kurle & Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan.

1.10.  As per the information received from the office of Chief Justice of India under RTI it is clarified that the said letter dated 23.03.2019 bearing courier ‘Id No. 36062021’ B. D. was received and placed before Chief Justice of India on 25.03.2019 and the same was closed with remark ‘filed’.

The remark ‘filed’ means the representation which is non-actionable, frivolous and requires no consideration. [Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar (2015) 4 SCC 91].

1.11. After getting knowledge of the refusal of their letter by the Chief Justice of India, the said Adv. Milind Sathe & Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran again hatched the conspiracy to save themselves from serious charges and to frame the Presidents of Bar Associations belonging to Backward Community and Human Rights activist belonging to minority Muslim Community.

1.12. In furtherance of said conspiracy the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran took the said letter privately from Adv. Milind Sathe and by suppressing the fact of refusal by the Chief Justice of India to take action, straightaway took the cognizance at their own in a case where they themselves are accused.

1.13. Such private communication with Judge is prohibited as per binding precedent and it was treated as gross contempt. [State Vs. Ravi Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80, Subramanian Swamy Vs. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, State Vs. Radhagobind Das 1953 SCC OnLine Ori. 27, Registrar of Supreme Court of South Australia Vs. S. 2016 SASC 93].

1.14. Instead of taking action against Adv. Milind Sathe who gave copy of notice privately to the Judge, Contempt show-cause notices were issued to those who raised their voice against injustice and who were actually the victims. The notice was issued to the following 4 people; i) Adv. Vijay Kurle (ii) Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan (iii) Adv. Nilesh Ojha   (iv) Adv. Mathews Nedumpara

1.15. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, instead of correcting the illegality and taking action against the guilty, adopted a total wrong approach and by ignoring the material on record, the binding precedents and the documentary proof, straightaway convicted and sentenced the Applicant on the basis of false and fabricated evidences.

1.16.   However the judgment dated 27.04.2020 in this case is specifically overruled by the larger Bench in Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745 observing that the suo-moto cognizance of contempt should be as per guidelines of P. N. Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167 and the information received by the Bench/Judge should be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and only  CJI can take the decision as to cognizance can be taken or not and if this procedure is not followed then the conviction and sentence stand vitiated as has been ruled in Bal Thackrey’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254.

1.17. But when this overruling of their judgment is brought to their notice they refused to recall their judgment and order.

1.18. The falsity and incorrectness of the story created by the  bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, that the letter was assigned to Justice nariman by the then CJI is exposed by the Supreme Court registry by pointing out that the said letter was never assigned to any Bench and it was closed on 25.03.2019.

1.19. Based on different documentary proofs given by the Supreme Court registry, the Applicant had filed two petitions for taking action Under Sec 191, 192, 193, 196, 167, 166, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 218, 219, 220, 211, 466, 471, 474 r/w 120 (B) & 34 of IPC against accused judges Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, Rohinton Nariman, Vineet Saran and L. Nageshwar Rao.

 

The dishonesty, falsity, frivolity and sophistry of Adv. Kapil Sibbal

 The dishonesty, falsity, frivolity and sophistry of Adv. Kapil Sibbal in settling the draft of Anil Deshmukh.

As per drafting of Mr. Anil Deshmukh he resigned before 31.03.2021 and therefore the apprehension of the petitioner that police cannot investigate against Home Minister no more exist and  this fact was brought to the notice of the High Court but High cout failed to appreciate.

But Anil Deshmukh’s letter of resignation itself says that he has resigned on 05.04.2021  because the judgment is passed by the High Court.

Adv. Kapil Sibbal is in habit of misleading the Supreme Court and all  the Courts in  the Country. Therefore already a Writ Petition is filed against him by noted Human Right Activist Rashid Khan Pathan  bearing Diary No. 5009 of 2021.

The relevant prayer reads thus;

“xv) To verify the conduct of Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibbal & Sr. Adv. Amit Desai as per law and ratio laid down in Lal Bahadur Gautam’s case (supra) and give specific finding about their ‘intellectual dishonestly’, sophistry and ‘straw man fallacy’ in giving anticipatorily overruled and per-incuriam submission to misled the Court with ulterior motive to frustrate the lawful prayers of the victims i.e. Respondent No. 25, 26 and 27 and thereby causing the unlawful detention and wrongful confinement.”

Indian Bar Association is likely to send representation to the CJI for taking action against Kapil Sibbal.

New Delhi : The falsity of the drafting settled by Kapil Sibbal can be seen from very fact that the High court closed the argument on 31.03.2021 and passed an order on 5.04.2021 at 12 pm and Anil Deshmukh resigned from the post at around 2 pm by giving the reason that he is resigning because of the judgment of High Court so that the CBI enquiry can be conducted fairly.

However while challenging the order of the High Court it is falsely mentioned on affidavit in the SLP that Mr. Anil Deshmukh has  already resigned and  the High Court failed to consider this fact and on this ground he prayed for setting aside the order of the High Court.

The relevant ground (X) and (Y) at page no 67 and 68 of the SLP reads thus;

“X. Because the High Court did not appreciate that the Petitioner has resigned, the reasons why the Hon’ble High Court passed the Order, does not survive anymore.

Y. Because the High Court did not appreciate that on a demurrer, the state machinery can now freely conduct its investigations, and the apprehensions expressed by the Hon’ble High Court no longer exist.”

The petition is drafted by Adv. Sudhanshu Chaudhary and draft is settled by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibbal.

There are following  landmark judgments which makes such  advocates and senior counsel’s like Kapil Sibbal liable for action of perjury in such situation.

1.1.  In E. S. Reddi Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P (1987) 3  SCC 258 it is ruled as under;

Duty and responsibility of senior counsel settling the draft- By virtue of the pre-eminence which senior counsel enjoy in the profession, they not only carry greater responsibilities but they also act as a model to the junior members of the profession. A senior counsel more or less occupies a position akin to a Queen's counsel in England next after the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. It is an honor and privilege conferred on advocates of standing and experience by the chief justice and the Judges of this court. They thus become leading counsel and take precedence on all counsel not having that rank- A senior counsel though he cannot draw up pleadings of the party, can nevertheless be engaged "to settle" i.e. to put the pleadings into "proper and satisfactory form" and hence a senior counsel settling pleadings has a more onerous responsibility as otherwise the blame for improper pleadings will be laid at his doors.

“10. Duty of Advocates towards Court – Held, he has to act fairly and place all the truth even if it is against his client – he should not withhold the authority or documents which tells against his client – It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say that he wants – He must disregard with instruction of his client which conflicts with their duty to the Court.

 

1.2. In R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras 2019 SCC OnLine SC 105 ruled as under;

 

‘‘25. It is said by Alexander Cockburn that “the weapon of the advocate is the sword of a soldier, not the dagger of the assassin”. It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a Judge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not to make false pleadings and avoid twisting of facts. In a profession, everything cannot be said to be fair even in the struggle for survival. The ethical standard is uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hard work is the only source towards perfection. An Advocate conduct is supposed to be exemplary. In case an Advocate causes disrepute of the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct, that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done to the entire legal system. Such a person is definitely deadwood and deserves to be chopped off.

 

1.3. In Veerbhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand  AIR 1985 SC 28 observed that Members of the profession claimed that they are the leaders of thought and society.

It is ruled  as under ;

“ (Para 23 )    ................Add to this that he ( Advocate) made a blatantly false statement in the proceedings of disciplinary enquiry that the respondent had appeared before him and admitted his signature. This is not only a false statement but it is false to his knowledge. If this is not professional misconduct, it would be time to wind up this jurisdiction. "

In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 1 SCR 306 at P. 322 : (AIR 1975 SC 2092 at P. 2104) the role of the members of the Bar can be appreciated. the Bar Council, is more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black sheep bring about. The official heads of the Bar i.e. the Attorney General and the Advocate-General too are distressed if a lawyer 'Stoops to conquer' by retort to soliciting touting and other corrupt practices.  He said :

"The Bar is not a private guild, like that of barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers' but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions : (1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform. (2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) His performance as a professional person is regulated by himself and more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice ('The Practice of Law is a Public Utility' The Lawyer, the Public and Professional Responsibility' by F. Raymond Marks et al - Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972, p. 288-289). A glance at the functions of the Bar Council, and it will be apparent that a rainbow of public utility duties, including legal aid to the poor, is cast on these bodies in the national hope that the members of this monopoly will serve society and keep to canons of ethics befitting an honourable order. If pathological cases of member misbehaviour occur, the reputation and credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem and who, but the Bar Council, is more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black sheep bring about. The official heads of the Bar i.e. the Attorney General and the Advocate-General too are distressed if a lawyer 'Stoops to conquer' by retort to soliciting touting and other corrupt practices." It these are  the high expectations of what is described as a noble profession, its members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation. If he falls from that high expectation, the punishment has to be commensurate with the degree and gravity of the misconduct. We need not reiterate the seriousness of the misconduct as we have repeatedly pointed out the same above.

 1.4. Twisting the facts and making wrong submission is also contempt and also offence u/s. 191,193 etc. of Indian Penal Code. While sentencing a Lawyer for 10 years rigrous imprisonment  Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Re: Vakil   AIR 1927 ALL 45 held as under ;

 I.P.C. 466, 193 – A Vakil was sentenced to two rigorous imprisonment of 5 years for filling documents containing false statement – Held, If legal practitioner signs a documents it is presumed that he fixes signatory with knowledge of contents – A Vakil so signing cannot plead that he did not know the contents – makes himself  responsible in every way – He is bound to answer for every word, line, sentence and paragraph, and it will be no defence that somebody else wrote it and he only signed it – He will be bound by all the implications arising from it just as much as if he had written every word – practitioner must realize that if they associates themselves with statements which they know to be dishonest and untruthful for the purpose of misleading the Court then they should be punished – practitioner suspended. 

 

1.5. In Badhuvan Kunhi  Vs. K. M. Abdulla MANU/KE/0828/2016, also contempt action was taken against the advocate.

1.6. Hon'ble high court in the case of P. V. R. S. Manikumar  v. Krishna Reddy -1999 cri. l. j. 2010 held a Lawyer guilty of contempt for suppression of material fact. It has been observed as under;

23. These things would show that the counsel has taken extra interest for his client and tapped every forum simultaneously and exhausted all the remedies at one stroke. The conduct of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the petitioner in approaching this Court and obtaining an order of stay even without mentioning relevant and material particulars is highly reprehensible. The counsel for the petitioner ought not to have been the party for the contemptuous act committed by the petitioner. The counsel is expected only to give legal advice. He cannot be expected to act in such a way in order to get some order or the other in some way or the other by suppressing the actual facts, which are very much known to him.

24. This conduct on the part of the petitioner/accused as well as the counsel would not only injure the other party in the litigation, but also would cause most mischievous consequence to the administration of the criminal justice. This would certainly be termed as an absolute abuse of Court's process.

 It has further been held that ;

27. Filing of any petition to stall the judicial proceedings in any Court of law by suppression of facts exposes the intention of the party concerned in preventing the course of justice. Anyone, who may be a client or a counsel, who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the holy stream of justice by resorting to the filing of these petitions, would cause serious damage to the institution.

28. The counsel is endowed with noble duties. He has not only got duty towards his client, but also to his colleague. He has not only got duty towards the Court, but also towards society. Therefore, he should see the case of his client conducted fairly and honestly. The Advocates are responsible to the Court for the fair and honest conduct of the case. In matters of this kind, they are bound to exercise an independent judgment and to conduct themselves with a sense of personal responsibility.

29. According to the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, AIR 1978 SC 1019 : (1978 Cri LJ 778), the Bar is not different from the Bench. They are the two sides of the same coin. Bar is an extension of the system of justice; lawyer is an officer of the Court. He is a master of an expertise, but more than that, kindful to the Court and governed by high ethics. The success of judicial process often depends on the service of the legal profession.

30. Normally, in dealing with the application for quashing, etc., while interim orders, the Court naturally takes the facts and grounds contained in the petition at their face value and the oral submission made by the counsel before this Court. Therefore, it may not be fair and proper on the part of the counsel to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are misleading.

31. Mr. N. R. Elango, the learned Government Advocate, who was asked to assist in this matter as Amicus Curiae, has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 110, wherein it has been held that the members of the legal profession should stand free from suspicion and that nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen any decree of confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

32. As the Apex Court would point out, giving a wrong legal advice cannot be said to be unethical, but giving an improper legal advice cannot be said to be ethical. When a client consults with a lawyer for his advice, the client relies upon his requisite experience, skill and knowledge as a counsel. In such a situation, the counsel is expected to give proper and dispassionate legal advice to the client for the protection of his interests.

33. ............. non-mentioning in this Court of the pendency of the Revision before the Sessions Court, and non-mentioning of the stay order passed by this Court before the Sessions Court and the trial Court would definitely be considered to be an improper legal advice.

34. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 3-2-1999 before this Court tendering unconditional apology for what are all he had committed in this matter earlier. He would give various circumstances in the said affidavit as to how he was not able to give those details to the respective Courts.

35. One portion of the affidavit filed by the counsel is quite relevant, which is as follows :-

 

"I regret to say that I am standing as an accused before this Hon'ble Court as said by Thiruvalluvar

 

(Vernacular matter omitted ....Ed.)

 

I humbly submit that I submit my unconditional apology for my act and I undertake that I would be very careful in touching the provision of law and assure that I would not commit such error or mistake and never do any illegal act which amounts to criminal or civil contempts in future."

 

36. The above portion of the affidavit really touches my heart and this would clearly reveal as to what extent the counsel for the petitioner felt sad and sorry for the happenings referred to above. There is a popular saying :

 

"To err is human;

 

To forgive is divine."

 

I may add one more sentence to it :

 

"To realise and to reform, is also divine."

 

37. The great Tamil Saint Thiruvalluvar says :

 

(Vernacular matter omitted ....Ed.)

 

Wield fast the rod, but gently lay. This strict mildness prolongs the sway.

 

38. Therefore, once the counsel for the petitioner realises his mistake, then this Court would consider the act of the counsel sympathetically without resorting to any other action against the counsel.