In a significant development, the Gauhati High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA), Kamal Nayan Choudhury, and other advocates for allegedly making derogatory remarks against a sitting judge concerning the proposed relocation of the High Court premises. The court emphasized that such actions by members of the legal fraternity undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
Background of the Contempt Proceedings
The controversy centers around public statements made by certain advocates, including Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya and Advocate Pallavi Talukdar, criticizing a sitting judge of the Gauhati High Court over the proposed relocation of the court premises. These remarks were broadcasted on various news platforms, prompting the Advocate General of Assam, Devajit Saikia, to file contempt petitions under Sections 11, 12, and 15(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The petitions allege that the statements made by the advocates scandalize the court and lower its authority.
Allegations Against the GHCBA President
The contempt petition specifically accuses GHCBA President Kamal Nayan Choudhury of failing to take appropriate action against the advocates who made the derogatory remarks. It is alleged that Choudhury's inaction amounts to consent and connivance, thereby making him complicit in the contemptuous conduct. The court observed that the tendency to criticize judges and courts is particularly unfortunate when it emanates from members of the legal profession, who are expected to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
Request for Recusal of Justice Nair
During the proceedings, President Choudhury sought the recusal of Justice Unni Krishnan Nair from the bench hearing the contempt petitions. Choudhury contended that Justice Nair had liked a social media post by Prag News reporting on the criminal case registered against certain lawyers of the association. He argued that this action could indicate a bias, thereby compromising the impartiality of the proceedings. However, the Chief Justice, Vijay Bishnoi, responded by questioning the relevance of the social media activity to the judicial proceedings, implicitly dismissing the recusal request.
Court's Directives and Observations
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Bishnoi and Justice Nair, described the statements made by the respondent lawyers as derogatory and contemptuous. Recognizing the potential impact of such statements on the public perception of the judiciary, the court directed that the videos containing the remarks be taken down under the appropriate provisions of the Information Technology Act and Rules. The court emphasized that maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary is paramount, and any actions undermining this must be addressed promptly and decisively.
Implications for the Legal Fraternity
This case underscores the responsibility of legal professionals to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. The court's decision to initiate contempt proceedings against the Bar Association President serves as a stern reminder that members of the legal community are not above the law and must adhere to the highest standards of conduct. It also highlights the importance of internal accountability mechanisms within bar associations to address misconduct among their members.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court's actions in this matter reflect a commitment to preserving the sanctity of the judicial process. By addressing the derogatory remarks made by members of the legal fraternity and holding them accountable, the court reinforces the principle that respect for the judiciary is non-negotiable. This case serves as a precedent, emphasizing that any attempts to undermine the authority of the judiciary, especially by those within the legal profession, will be met with appropriate legal consequences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.