Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has initiated action against a lawyer who termed court proceedings ‘judicial terrorism’ during the hearing of a writ petition, observing the remark was an unwarranted attack on the judiciary and had the potential to undermine the dignity and sanctity of the institution.A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Rajnish Vyas issued a show-cause notice to a Amravati lawyer, asking why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated by referring the matter to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct. The lawyer has been directed to file his reply by July 28.The incident occurred during the hearing of a petition filed by a retired employee of a private school in Amravati seeking release of salary arrears, provident fund and gratuity. The petitioner sought a direction to withdraw the school’s recognition if the dues remained unpaid.Appearing through videoconferencing, the petitioner’s counsel was asked to identify the statutory provision empowering the court to direct withdrawal of the school’s recognition. The lawyer, however, failed to point to any specific legal provision and instead made generalised submissions.The bench then directed the petitioner to deposit ₹50,000 within one week, failing which the writ petition would stand dismissed. During the arguments, the lawyer remarked the proceedings amounted to ‘judicial terrorism’.Taking strong exception, the bench observed the statement was ‘wholly unwarranted, unbecoming of a member of the Bar and amounts to an unwarranted attack on the institution of the judiciary’.Instead of initiating contempt proceedings, the bench decided to refer the matter to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for examination of alleged professional misconduct. It directed the Bar Council to conduct an expeditious inquiry and submit its report to the High Court within 12 weeks.At the same time, the court expressed willingness to grant the petitioner another opportunity to pursue the case. It clarified the writ petition would be listed for further consideration only if the petitioner deposits the ₹50,000 costs within a week.
