Bench Should Not Escalate Heated Exchanges With Bar Into Contempt Proceedings Or Costs Against Advocates: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order imposing costs upon a Senior Advocate and issuing him a contempt notice following an exchange during court proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed: “It is not uncommon that during the course of arguments sometimes there is heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench. However, the Bench should forebear from escalating it to the level of initiating contempt proceedings against the advocates or imposing costs on the person of the Advocates. Rather, an effort should always be made to avoid such undesirable situation. Had the learned Members of the Tribunal shown some level of restraint and maturity, the unpleasant situation leading to issuing contempt notice against Senior Advocate could have been avoided”.

The Bench added: “It is equally true that the learned advocates appearing before the Court, particularly, the Senior Advocates have a higher responsibility to ensure that the dignity and decorum of Court is maintained at all costs and small differences in perception do not escalate into creating unsavoury and unpleasant atmosphere thus driving a wedge between the Bar and the Bench.”

Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai appeared in person.

Background

The High Court had earlier expressed its intention to resolve the controversy through mediation and directed the petitioner and both Members of the Tribunal to appear personally before it in chambers.

The petitioner appeared before the High Court. The Tribunal Members, however, did not appear despite service through dasti mode. The Court also stated that an attempt to arrange their appearance through virtual mode was unsuccessful because they did not respond to telephone calls made by the Tribunal Registry.

The dispute arose from a Tribunal order imposing ₹10,000 costs upon the Senior Advocate and issuing him a contempt notice over an incident during proceedings.

Court’s Observations

Tribunal Members Did Not Participate In Proposed Mediation

The Court noted that its effort to resolve the dispute through mediation could not proceed because the Tribunal Members did not appear.

The Bench stated: “The petitioner has come present, but the Members, despite having been served dasti, have decided not to appear. Even an attempt made to provide a link so that they could appear through virtual mode, could not succeed as both the Members failed to respond to the telephonic calls given by the Registry of the Tribunal.”

The Court observed that the Tribunal Members did not appear willing to cooperate with the proposed resolution process.

Costs Were Imposed Without Hearing Senior Advocate

The Court held that the impugned order breached the principles of natural justice because the Tribunal had imposed costs without first giving the Senior Advocate an opportunity to be heard.

The Bench observed: “We have gone through the order impugned and find the same in complete breach of principles of natural justice in that a cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the learned Senior counsel without even affording him an opportunity of being heard and that too on a very small matter which ought to have been sorted out in the open Court.”

The Court found that the dispute was minor and could have been resolved during the open-court proceedings instead of being escalated into contempt action and personal costs.

Restraint Required From Both Bench And Bar

The Court observed that heated exchanges between the Bench and members of the Bar were not uncommon during arguments. It stated that judicial officers should attempt to prevent such disagreements from escalating into contempt proceedings or costs against advocates.

The Bench held that restraint and maturity on the Tribunal Members’ part could have prevented the situation leading to the contempt notice.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that advocates also bore responsibility for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the court. It particularly highlighted the greater responsibility of Senior Advocates to prevent minor differences in perception from creating an unpleasant atmosphere or damaging relations between the Bar and the Bench.

Conclusion

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal’s order, including the ₹10,000 costs and contempt notice against the Senior Advocate.

The Bench concluded: “Without saying much in the matter, we wish to close the matter here only. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal, which apparently is contrary to the law and in sheer breach of principles of natural justice, is quashed. The writ petition shall stand allowed in the above terms.”

Cause Title: Jahangir Iqbal Ganai v. Mohd. Amin Dar and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment