Karnataka High Court Sentences Advocate To One Day Imprisonment For Disrupting Proceedings While Being Drunk

The Court was hearing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, initiated following reports of repeated misconduct before a Magistrate’s Court in Karwar.

A Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed: “We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the materials on record. We have also noticed the conduct of the accused before the Court. Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole. His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct. We are of the clear opinion that if conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole.”

On sentence, the Bench held: “Having considered the contentions advanced and the gravity of the contempt, the conduct of the accused as well as his age and profession, we sentence the accused/contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of 1-day (till raising of the Court) with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to be payable within 15 days from today, and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day.”

High Court Government Pleader Thejesh P. appeared for the complainant, while the accused advocate appeared in person.

Background

The advocate was appearing for himself in a domestic violence proceeding. Although his case was not listed, he appeared before the Magistrate and shouted at the Presiding Officer and the bench clerk over the scheduling and calling of his case. He also alleged that the Magistrate had accepted money from his wife and passed orders in her favour. The incident was reported to the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

The advocate subsequently submitted an apology, expressed regret and requested withdrawal of the complaint. However, a later report recorded that he interrupted another advocate’s arguments, demanded that his own case be taken up and continued shouting despite the Magistrate’s intervention. He was sent for medical examination after appearing unsteady and smelling of alcohol. The reports and medical certificate were forwarded to the High Court, which initiated contempt proceedings and framed charges.

The advocate denied committing contempt and pointed out that the medical certificate related to the later incident rather than the first. He also pleaded longstanding epilepsy, responsibility for caring for his bedridden mother and an otherwise unblemished professional record, while alleging that the proceedings were intended to harass him. During the proceedings, the Deputy Registrar and the Magistrate were examined and cross-examined, and the documentary material was placed before the Court.

Court’s Observations

Examining Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court considered conduct which scandalises a Court, lowers its authority or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.

The Court relied on Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 109, which distinguished permissible criticism from baseless allegations against Judges. Referring to that decision, the Court reiterated: “No litigant can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a judgment and bring the courts generally in disrepute or attribute motives to the judges rendering the judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only for the preservation of rule of law but also for the independence of judiciary. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters.”

The Court also referred to Prashant Bhushan and Another, In Re, (2021) 3 SCC 160, on the limits of protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Citing Vijay Kurle, In Re and Others, (2021) 13 SCC 616, it reiterated that contempt law does not prevent fair criticism but protects the respect and confidence reposed in the judicial system.

The Court considered the Magistrate’s account of both incidents, the earlier apology and the documentary reports. The Magistrate testified that the advocate had repeated his disruptive conduct despite warnings and the apology tendered after the first incident.

The judgment also recorded the qualification emerging during cross-examination that the medical opinion was reserved pending the forensic report, although the certificate recorded the smell of alcohol in the advocate’s breath.

After considering the evidence, the Court held: “Having considered the evidence adduced in this case, we are of the clear view that the charges leveled against the accused stands proved. The accused has not been able to place any mitigating circumstances that would explain his contemptuous conduct. He has committed aggravated contempt in the face of the Court by scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against Judicial Officers as well as the Judges of the Court. The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such.”

Although the record contained an earlier apology and the advocate’s medical and family pleas, the Court found no mitigating explanation for the contemptuous conduct. At the sentencing hearing, it considered the gravity of the contempt, his conduct, age and profession.

The Court observed: “We have heard the accused on sentence. We find that the accused has not expressed any regret and continues his adamant stand. No mitigating factors have also been pleaded.”

Conclusion

The Court convicted the advocate of criminal contempt punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It imposed simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a ₹2,000 fine payable within 15 days, with one day’s simple imprisonment in default of payment.

The contemnor was directed to be taken into custody forthwith. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to issue a conviction warrant under Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. The Registry was directed to immediately furnish a free copy of the order, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Pankaj Kaushik

Appearances

Complainant: High Court Government Pleader Thejesh P.

Accused: Advocate Pankaj Kaushik, Party-in-Person

Click here to read/download Judgment