Apology not enough ----------------------- The Supreme Court has upheld a one-month jail term for an advocate on contempt charges, saying none can “demean and disgrace the majesty of justice”, and rejected the counsel’s unconditional apology for his behaviour. “The concept of mercy and compassion is ordinarily attracted keeping in view the infirmities of man’s nature and fragile conduct, but in a court of law a counsel cannot always take shelter under the canopy of mercy, for the law has to reign supreme. “The sanctity of law, which is sustained through dignity of courts, cannot be marred by errant behaviour by any counsel or litigant. Even a judge is required to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court,” the apex court said. A bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra passed the order while dismissing the appeal of Arun Kumar Yadav, who had challenged a judgment of Allahabad High Court delivered on August 17, 2007. The high court had convicted him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, imposing on him a simple imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs 2,000. If he fails to pay the fine, Yadav will have to serve a further imprisonment of two weeks. On September 5, 2005, Yadav had barged into a court in Fatehpur, using abusive language against civil judge Abdul Qayum while he was dictating an order to his stenographer in a case. On a complaint from the judicial officer, the high court had initiated contempt proceedings against Yadav. The high court framed the contempt charges against him on October 6, 2006. Yadav filed an affidavit on November 14, 2006, tendering an unconditional apology. The high court came to the conclusion that it was not a case in which an unconditional apology tendered by the appellant should be accepted and imposed the sentence. Yadav then appealed in the apex court. “No one has the authority to conduct (himself) in a manner which would demean and disgrace the majesty of justice, which is dispensed by a court of law…” the two-judge bench said. “… In the case at hand, we are absolutely convinced that apology or for that matter the unconditional apology was neither prompt nor genuine,” the bench observed, directing Yadav to surrender.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:52:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015