NEW DELHI: Lawyers filing petitions on behalf of litigants would be liable for contempt of court proceedings if the plaint contained derogatory remarks against judges, the Supreme Court has said and issued contempt of court notices to an advocate-petitioner and his advocate-on-record, who filed a plea in the apex court.
“Issue notice, returnable on December 2, to the petitioner Mohan Chandra P, as well as the advocate-on-record Vipin Kumar Jai, as to why an action for contempt of the court be not initiated against them. Both the above-named persons shall remain present in the court on December 2,” ordered a bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna.
Pursuant to a notification of August 7, 2018, issued by the Karnataka Information Commission, advocate Mohan Chandra had applied for the posts of chief information commissioner as well as state information commissioner. The selection committee recommended three persons for the CIC as well as IC which did not include the name of Chandra. He filed an appeal against the selection process, appointment of CIC and IC, while questioning his non-appointment to the advertised posts before the Karnataka HC.
A single judge bench of the HC dismissed his petition on April 21 this year. Chandra filed an appeal against this order before a division bench of the HC, which on September 2 rejected the plea with a cost of Rs 5 lakh. In the special leave petition before the SC, Chandra said, “The reason assigned by the division bench of the Karnataka HC for extraneous reason and to harass the respondents is unwarranted one and without any basis or foundation to justify the samen (sic). On the other hand, the division bench has taken into consideration extraneous reasons and as a revenge imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner.”
The petitioner made insinuations against the judges accusing them of dismissing the plea for cheap publicity.
“Issue notice, returnable on December 2, to the petitioner Mohan Chandra P, as well as the advocate-on-record Vipin Kumar Jai, as to why an action for contempt of the court be not initiated against them. Both the above-named persons shall remain present in the court on December 2,” ordered a bench of Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna.
Pursuant to a notification of August 7, 2018, issued by the Karnataka Information Commission, advocate Mohan Chandra had applied for the posts of chief information commissioner as well as state information commissioner. The selection committee recommended three persons for the CIC as well as IC which did not include the name of Chandra. He filed an appeal against the selection process, appointment of CIC and IC, while questioning his non-appointment to the advertised posts before the Karnataka HC.
A single judge bench of the HC dismissed his petition on April 21 this year. Chandra filed an appeal against this order before a division bench of the HC, which on September 2 rejected the plea with a cost of Rs 5 lakh. In the special leave petition before the SC, Chandra said, “The reason assigned by the division bench of the Karnataka HC for extraneous reason and to harass the respondents is unwarranted one and without any basis or foundation to justify the samen (sic). On the other hand, the division bench has taken into consideration extraneous reasons and as a revenge imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner.”
The petitioner made insinuations against the judges accusing them of dismissing the plea for cheap publicity.
