Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed by a practicing advocate (‘petitioner’) for modification of order passed by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3245 (‘Anil Kumar case’) condemning hooliganism made in open Court by him upon rejection of anticipatory bail, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., held that the apology given by the petitioner in person was a sincere apology, thus, it was accepted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and requested the Jharkhand State Bar Council to not proceed against the petitioner.
Background
During the Court proceeding in Anil Kumar case (supra), some untoward incident occurred inadvertently by the petitioner, who was the arguing counsel and in view of request made by the Members of Bar, the Court had not passed any sentence order, however, referred the matter to the Jharkhand State Bar Council, considering that the said Body was the disciplinary authority of the advocates.
It was submitted that the petitioner, in categorical terms, had tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for the said act, which happened on that day. Hence, it was requested by his counsel that his apology be accepted and he be allowed exemption to face the consequence of the said order at the behest of Jharkhand State Bar Council as he had given an undertaking to the effect that such act would never be repeated before any Court to substantiate his apology.
The petitioner was present in person, and he apologized in open Court stating that the apology was not intentional to avoid the rigor of the order.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that the apology made by the petitioner in person had got no doubt in mind that contemner in the present case had tendered a sincere apology and had satisfied the Court of his undertaking to never repeat such an act again specially when on earlier occasion, it was a bona fide error on ill-advice received by him. The sincere intention, which was stated to be the seed of offering such an apology, was fully satisfied in this case. The Court noted that the President and Secretary of the Advocate Association and other Members of the Bar had collectively expressed regrate for whole affair. Hence, in such a situation, the apology given by the petitioner was accepted.
The Court further stated that the punishment for a wrong had a positive, but limited role and a social malady could not be eradicated merely by inflicting legal punishment as the object of punishing a contemner for committing contempt of Court was to uphold the rule of law and to maintain the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. “Public confidence in the administration of justice could not be maintained unless the machinery for the administration of justice functioned properly and the machinery could not function unless all the component parts of the machinery stood at their proper place and performed the respective roles assigned to them.” The Court emphasized that it was necessary that a proper atmosphere was created and maintained for the same purpose.
Therefore, the Court opined that the matter need not proceed further and stated that the cause of justice would be subserved in adequate measure, if the apology tendered by the petitioner was accepted and proceedings were dropped. The Court found that the petitioner deserved a chance. Further, the Court stated that since the apology was accepted, the adverse remark made against the petitioner in the said order was expunged.
The Court allowed the petition and requested the Jharkhand State Bar Council to not proceed against the petitioner further as the unconditional apology was accepted by it.
[Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. M.P. No. 3017 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ritu Kumar, Advocate, Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate and Navin Kumar Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent: Kumari Rashmi, APP