Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by an Advocate to recall the contempt order dated 10-04-2025, whereby the he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 and was issued a notice to show why he should not be restrained from practicing in the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for three years, the Division Bench of Vivek Chaudhary and Brij Raj Singh, JJ., noting no improvement in the Advocate’s behaviour even after being punished for contempt before, rejected his application of recall and barred him from practicing and appearing before the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench for a period of three years. He was also sentenced to six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 and was restrained from entering the Court premises during the 3 years’ period.
Background vis-à-vis contempt order
In the instant matter, the contemnor, while addressing the Court, appeared with the top two buttons of his short open. Despite being specifically asked by the Court to button them properly, had failed to do so. This act of defiance led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against him. By an order dated 10-04-2025, he was found guilty of contempt and was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000.
The Contemnor was directed to surrender to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, within four weeks to serve the sentence. Additionally, he was issued a notice to show as to why he should not be debarred from practicing before the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench. Subsequently, the contemnor filed the present recall application against the order 10-04-2025.
Analysis
The Court noted that the contemnor has not given any reason for recalling the order dated 10-04-2025, except that he should not be punished. The Court observed that the contempt order was not an ex parte order and was passed after hearing the contemnor Hence, the Court did not find any reason to recall the order.
On the issue of punishment, the Court rejected contemnor’s argument that he should be punished by imposing a fine of Rs 1 as was ordered by the Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan (Contempt Matter), In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160. The Court observed that Prashant Bhushan (supra) was the only contempt faced by Prashant Bhushan in the said case, whereas the contemnor had already been punished for contempt once and was currently facing six other contempt petitions.
The Court observed that the contemnor’s shirt was unbuttoned during the proceedings that initiated the contempt charge. Despite being instructed by the court to properly button his shirt, he had failed to comply and further offered no explanation for his conduct, even before this Court.
The Court rejected the unconditional apology submitted by the contemnor, which the Court found to be very belated and is also not bona fide, considering his previous conduct and punishments. Consequently, the Court found no reason to alter the previously imposed sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and a Rs. 2000 fine, with an additional month of imprisonment if the fine was not paid within one month.
On the issue of the contemnor’s practice at the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow being his only livelihood and having no other means of earning, the Court noted no improvement in his conduct even after 2 years of restraint from entering the premises of this Court.
Hence, the Court restrained the contemnor from practicing and appearing before this Court at Allahabad and Lucknow for three years. He was also restrained from entering the premises of the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow Bench during the three years, unless specially ordered by this Court.
The Court rejected the application for recall and allowed the contempt application.
[State of U.P. v. Asok Pande, Contempt Application (Criminal) No.1493 of 2021 , decided on 26-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Party in person
For the respondent: G.A.