Nagpur: Threatening a judicial officer and trying to pressure him into altering the course of proceedings amounts to criminal contempt, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled on Monday while holding two advocates based in Arni (Yavatmal) guilty of contempt.A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Raj Wakode directed the two lawyers — a son and father — to pay a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 each. It also referred the proceedings to the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for appropriate action. JM Gandhi was appointed amicus curiae by the court.The contempt reference arose from an incident before judicial magistrate first class (JMFC), Arni, during proceedings in a criminal case. The judge issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused, who remained absent despite a bailable warrant against him.As per the prosecution, the son, appearing for the accused in JMFC court, sought cancellation of the warrant and insisted the informant’s evidence be recorded after claiming the matter was settled. When the judge declined, citing absence of the accused, the son allegedly shouted in court and threatened to complain against the judge and initiate action through a Bar Association resolution.Later, his father, who was then president of Arni Taluka Court Bar Association, entered the courtroom while the judge was dictating an order. According to the reference, he pointed a finger at the judge and threatened that if anything was recorded or action was taken, they would not spare him and submit alleged proof of corruption against him to senior authorities.The high court held the statements were intended to “pressurise and terrorise” the judicial officer and interfere with the administration of justice. “Obstruction of judicial process by an advocate cannot be tolerated,” the bench observed.The lawyers denied allegations and argued the incidents occurred during heated submissions. They also tendered unconditional apologies. The court, however, held the apologies were not tendered at the earliest opportunity and were made after the contempt proceedings had progressed.While holding that the lawyers committed contempt, the judges chose a fine instead of imprisonment, considering they had subsequently tendered apologies. They also stressed that an advocate has the right to raise a genuine grievance against a judicial officer before the appropriate authority, but must maintain respect for the court.
