The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticised practising advocate and CPM leader Firdous Samim for allegedly using objectionable slang against a sitting judge after his plea was refused. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee directed Samim to personally approach the concerned Single Judge during the Court’s livestreamed proceedings and tender an apology. The Bench further directed him to submit a written undertaking confirming that such conduct would not be repeated. At the same time, the Court made it clear that an apology would not automatically close the matter and that it would consider whether formal criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated after examining his response.
The incident came before the High Court after an allegedly objectionable remark was made by Samim following the refusal of his plea. The precise slang allegedly used by the advocate has not been reproduced in the report, but the Court considered it sufficiently serious to intervene. The Bench indicated that the remark was not merely a personal expression directed at an individual judge but could potentially be understood as an objectionable comment against judges of the High Court more generally. This wider interpretation increased the seriousness with which the Court viewed the incident.
The Bench particularly emphasised that Samim was not a member of the public unfamiliar with courtroom procedure. He is a practising advocate who regularly appears before the Calcutta High Court and has appeared before the judges concerned. The Court therefore considered his conduct more serious because, as a legal professional, he is expected to understand the standards of courtroom behaviour and the professional responsibilities that accompany the right to practise law. The Bench contrasted his position with that of an ordinary litigant or layperson who might not be familiar with the conventions governing advocacy and judicial proceedings.
According to the Court’s account, the alleged incident occurred after Samim’s plea was refused. Rather than treating the rejection of the plea as an ordinary part of litigation, the advocate allegedly ended the interaction by using objectionable slang against the judge. The Bench expressed concern about this reaction because lawyers regularly face adverse orders, rejected submissions and judicial disagreement in the course of litigation. Such outcomes, the Court indicated, are part of the judicial process and cannot justify the use of inappropriate or derogatory language against a judge.
The High Court therefore drew an important distinction between legitimate advocacy and personal or derogatory attacks. The Bench made it clear that an advocate is fully entitled to disagree with a judicial order. A lawyer can contend that a judge has made an error, request reconsideration, challenge the decision before an appropriate forum or pursue an appeal or other legal remedy. What an advocate cannot do, according to the Court’s observations, is convert disagreement with a judicial decision into insulting or objectionable language directed at the judge.
This distinction is central to the Court’s reasoning. Advocacy necessarily involves disagreement. Lawyers are expected to represent their clients forcefully and to point out legal or factual errors in orders and judgments. However, professional advocacy operates within established standards of courtesy and respect for the judicial institution. The Court’s comments suggest that criticism of a decision can remain legitimate when expressed through legal submissions, while personal attacks or derogatory language cross the boundary of acceptable courtroom conduct.
The Bench also rejected the possible explanation that pressure or frustration during court proceedings can cause a lawyer to lose his temper. The Court observed that advocates may sometimes work under considerable pressure, but such pressure cannot be used to justify inappropriate behaviour. If a lawyer becomes frustrated by an order or courtroom exchange, the proper response is to maintain professional restraint and pursue lawful remedies rather than directing abusive language towards a judge. The Court indicated that personal frustration must not interfere with the standards expected of members of the legal profession.
The Court’s concern extended beyond the particular incident involving Samim. The Bench indicated that allowing such behaviour to go unanswered could send an undesirable message regarding the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. If an advocate could make objectionable remarks against judges and avoid consequences simply by apologising afterwards, it could create the impression that such conduct is acceptable or carries no meaningful consequences. The Court therefore stressed that the matter could not automatically be treated as resolved merely because an apology was offered.
At the same time, the Court gave Samim an opportunity to apologise before immediately initiating formal contempt proceedings. The Bench directed him to approach the Single Judge concerned and seek pardon during the live proceedings. It further required him to give an undertaking that the conduct would never be repeated. This direction indicates that the Court was providing an opportunity for the advocate to acknowledge the seriousness of his conduct and assure the Court that similar behaviour would not occur in the future.
The requirement that the apology be made during the Court’s livestream is particularly notable. The proceedings of the concerned court are livestreamed, and the Bench specifically directed Samim to make his apology before the judge during those live proceedings. The Court also required a written affidavit containing the apology and an undertaking. Thus, the direction involved both a public courtroom apology and a formal written commitment. The Bench indicated that it would assess the apology and undertaking before deciding whether the matter should proceed further.
The Court made it clear that the apology was not an automatic settlement of the issue. After Samim complies with the direction, the Division Bench will consider whether a formal rule of contempt should be issued. This means the Court retains the authority to proceed against him despite an apology if it considers the circumstances sufficiently serious. The possibility of criminal contempt proceedings therefore remains open, subject to the Court’s assessment of his conduct, apology and undertaking.
The issue of contempt is significant because courts possess powers to protect the administration of justice and the authority of judicial proceedings. However, the present report records the Court’s direction and observations rather than a final finding that Samim has committed criminal contempt. It is therefore important to distinguish the allegation and the Court’s preliminary response from any eventual determination. At this stage, the advocate has been directed to apologise and provide an undertaking, after which the Bench will decide whether further contempt action is necessary.
The Court also appeared concerned about the institutional impact of the alleged remarks. The Bench observed that such conduct can affect not merely the reputation of one judge but the perception of the judiciary as a whole. The Court suggested that the alleged language could be interpreted as being directed against judges of the High Court generally. Consequently, the matter was viewed as one involving the dignity and functioning of the judicial institution rather than simply a personal disagreement between an advocate and an individual judge.
The fact that Samim regularly practises before the High Court was another factor highlighted by the Bench. Lawyers who frequently appear before a court develop a professional relationship with judges and court staff, making familiarity with courtroom standards particularly important. The Court observed that it might have viewed the situation differently if the person involved had been a layperson unfamiliar with legal proceedings. Because Samim is an advocate and has appeared before the concerned judges, the Bench considered that he should have been aware of the limits of acceptable conduct.
The proceedings also reinforce the principle that the Bar and Bench have distinct but interconnected responsibilities in the justice system. Advocates serve as representatives of litigants and are expected to put forward their cases fearlessly. Judges, on the other hand, are responsible for deciding disputes according to law. Disagreement between lawyers and judges is therefore an unavoidable feature of litigation. The Court’s observations suggest that such disagreement must remain within the framework of professional advocacy and should not become personal hostility or disrespectful conduct.
The matter also demonstrates that professional freedom in advocacy does not mean unrestricted freedom of expression inside a courtroom. Lawyers can question the correctness of a judicial decision and seek appropriate remedies, but their submissions must remain consistent with professional standards. The Court’s comments indicate that a lawyer who believes an order is wrong should challenge the order through legally recognised mechanisms rather than expressing anger through personal insults. This distinction is essential to preserving both the independence of advocacy and the dignity of the judicial process.
The Bench was also concerned about the possibility that the incident could create a broader perception that the High Court tolerates misconduct towards judges. It observed that remaining silent in the face of such conduct could send an undesirable message beyond the courtroom. The Court therefore considered it necessary to take a remedial step and make clear that objectionable comments against judges cannot simply be ignored. The direction for an apology, undertaking and possible contempt proceedings reflects this institutional concern.
Senior Advocate Jayanta Mitra appeared for Firdous Samim during the proceedings. The Bench addressed its concerns to the senior counsel and explained the distinction between legitimate disagreement and unacceptable conduct. The Court emphasised that advocacy allows a lawyer to contend that a judge is wrong or request reconsideration, but does not permit the use of derogatory language. This observation reinforces the idea that strong representation and professional courtesy are not mutually exclusive.
The next stage of the matter will depend upon Samim’s compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench. He has been directed to approach the concerned Single Judge during the livestreamed proceedings, tender an apology and submit an affidavit containing both the written apology and an undertaking that the conduct will not be repeated. The Division Bench will then consider whether the apology is acceptable and whether it should close the matter or whether a formal rule of contempt should be issued.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s action against advocate and CPM leader Firdous Samim highlights the importance of professional discipline, judicial dignity and responsible advocacy. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee took serious note of the alleged use of objectionable slang against a sitting judge after Samim’s plea was rejected. The Court directed him to apologise before the concerned judge during live proceedings and submit a written undertaking that such conduct would not be repeated. However, the Bench expressly reserved the question of criminal contempt and stated that it would decide whether further proceedings were warranted after considering the apology and undertaking. The episode ultimately underscores a fundamental principle of courtroom practice: lawyers are free to challenge judicial decisions, seek reconsideration and pursue appellate remedies, but disagreement with a judge must remain within the boundaries of lawful and respectful advocacy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.