Uttarakhand HC stops short of holding Advocate General, Govt Advocate guilty of contempt

Justice Lok Pal Singh of the Uttarakhand High Court nearly initiated contempt proceedings against Advocate General (AG) SN Babulkar and Government Advocate (GA) GS Sandhu earlier this month, in response to their unwarranted intervention in a criminal hearing before the Court..Viewing their unexpected presence in the courtroom during the last hearing as suspicious, the judge remarked,.“Why are they [AG Bubalkar and GA Sandhu] present in the Court room, when they don’t have to argue any other case? The presence of Mr SN Babulkar, Advocate General is definitely for some hidden reason.”.By way of background, the Court’s attention had been drawn to certain discrepancies in the investigation of a criminal case. In February 2018, Justice VK Bist had sought explanation from the Investigating Officer (IO), Om Prakash regarding certain procedural delays..However, for two listed hearings thereafter, IO Om Prakash failed to appear before the Court. When he did finally appear, Justice Lok Pal Singh noticed certain contradictions in the explanation given for his previous abstentions. It was expected the Deputy AG SK Chaudhary would explain the discrepancy. Up until then, it was the Deputy AG who had represented the state..However, only Assistant Government Advocate (AGA), PS Bohara, was present to represent the state on the last date of hearing, i.e. May 11. At this stage, AGA Bohara had raised the question of whether the petition was maintainable..It was this contention that prompted AG Babulkar and GA Sandhu to intervene out of turn and express support. On this note, the Court clarified that a plea of maintainability cannot be raised when earlier court orders were not complied with..More importantly, the Court took issue with the unsolicited intervention of the AG Babulkar and GA Sandhu, in their vocal support for AGA Bohara..What appears to have provoked the judge is the AG’s insistence on constantly intervening in arguments, while at the same time demonstrating a certain reluctance to commit to taking up the case for the state. As noted in the order,.“This Court has not invited the Advocate General to argue the matter. He is present in the Court on his own along with Government Advocate and other State Law Officers, for the reasons best known to him….Despite the request made by the Court, Advocate General is not willing to argue the case finally on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Rather he intervened in the proceedings of the Court time and again…”.While this was the case, Justice Singh took the view that such intervention is not appropriate, given that on behalf of one party, only one lawyer is expected to argue the case. Furthermore, the AG’s intervention in the case, after having passed on the responsibility to AGA Bohara, did not sit well with the judge..“The Court is hearing the arguments advanced by Mr Bohara AGA but it is not the way to argue the case by suddenly intervening in the matter without being asked….Once a case is assigned to Mr PS Bohara, AGA considering his legal acumen to argue the case, learned Advocate General should not intervene in the matter and if he thinks that he should address the court, then he should have advance his submissions.”.The Court also took the view that such interruption was in effect disrupting court proceedings. Therefore, the Court found that the AG’s conduct would amount to contempt..“In my view, it is a clear cut deliberate and willful contempt of the Court being committed by learned Advocate General and Government Advocate.”.The High Court also opined that such disruption could be a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the immediate issues in the case..“Such a practice of intervening in the arguments is not a happy practice. .The intervention of Mr SM Babulkar, Advocate General and Mr GS Sandhu, Government Advocate in support of the arguments advanced by Mr Bohara, AGA amounts to causing hindrance in the ongoing proceedings of the Court and is a deliberate attempt to divert the issue and interference in the dispensation of justice, which amounts to contempt of the Court. “.All the same, the Court refrained from initiating contempt, and instead let the law officers off with a warning..“The act of Advocate General and the Government Advocate is contemptuous, and this Court has warned them that it will not permit them to lead arguments in such a way….Such practice of State Law Officers is deprecated. However, this Court is not initiating any contempt proceedings against them and has simply warned them not to repeat the same mistake in future.”.Before posting the case for its next hearing on May 30, the Court suggested that the government could designate law officers to argue particular cases, given that a large number of officers will not be allowed to argue the same case..“They may appoint any Law Officer, on whom they have full confidence to argue the case before the Court, but this Court cannot permit large number of Law Officers to argue a particular case in piecemeal of rival submissions.”.The IO, Om Prakash, was however found guilty for wilful disobedience of court orders, and therefore guilty of contempt. However, the Court has given time until May 30, 2018 for his counter-affidavit to be filed..Read the order: