Calcutta High Court imposes ₹1 lakh fine on lawyer for contempt of court

The Calcutta High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on an advocate for contempt of court in a matter related to the pendency of his complaint before the Bar Council of West Bengal [Debanjan Mondal vs Somabrata Mandal]..Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya found that advocate Somabrata Mandal had filed an application before the Bar Council of India (BCI) for withdrawal of his case before the State Bar Council despite the High Court having reserved its decision on his petition on the same issue.“The very act of the contemnor in filing the same at a juncture when judgment had been reserved in the matter after hearing both sides shows the contumacious action of the contemnor in seeking to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition,” the Court said..It added that the lawyer’s action would have been understandable if there had been an inordinate delay after conclusion of the hearing of his writ petition and passing of the order. However, the Court noted there was only an eight-day gap between the final hearing and passing of judgement in December 2023..In Mandal’s writ petition, the legal issue was related to the cut-off date for disposal of complaints before the State Bar Council. Under the law, if the complaint is not disposed of within one year, it automatically stands transferred to the BCI.While Mandal’s argument was that the one-year period begins from the day the complaint is filed with the State Bar Council, the Court ruled that the one-year period starts only when the State Bar Council refers the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.Despite the Court’s ruling, which was reserved then, Mandal had chosen to approach the BCI for withdrawal of complaint from the State Bar Council..In the verdict dated July 12 in contempt proceedings against Mandal, the Court noted that he has been associated with the legal profession for a considerable period of time and it cannot be said that he was so naive to misinterpret the provisions of Advocates Act. There cannot be any manner of doubt that he sought to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition,prior to judgment being delivered in the same, the Court observed..The Court further found that contempt continued even after the passing of judgement as Mandal did not withdraw his application from the Bar Council of India despite the ruling not being in his favour. He did not even seek an adjournment to await a decision in appeal against the December 2023 judgement, it noted.“The contemnor boldly proceeded with the application before the Bar Council of India, merely pointing out before the Bar Council of India that an order had been passed in the meantime before by this court, apparently to save the contemnor‟s skin so that the contemnor was not held guilty of suppression of the order subsequently,” it said It also noted that the lawyer had even complied with the BCI directive to withdraw his appeal from the High Court to facilitate further proceedings before the bar body..Concluding that there was a wilful and deliberate attempt on the lawyer’s part to thwart the court decision of December 2023, the Court said it cannot be purged merely by seeking an unqualified apology.However, the Court also acknowledged the lawyer’s standing in the legal profession and his years of practice. It thus decided against sending him to prison which would have an “irreversible adverse effect on his career”.“In view of the gross contempt committed by the contemnor in his actions as indicated above, the contemnor is directed to deposit fine to the tune of Rs.1 lakh to any of the Advocates' benevolent funds of this court by August 9, 2024,” the Court thus ordered. .Advocates Krishnaraj Thaker, Rohan Raj, Indranil Munshi, Vedika Bhotika, Anushka Sarkhel and Soumavo Mukherjee represented the contemnor.Advocates Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Biswajit Kumar, Soumya Chowdhury and Susera Mitra represented the petitioners in contempt applications..[Read Order]