Calcutta High Court Issues Contempt Notices To Six Advocates Over 2012 Courtroom Mayhem

The Division Bench of Justice Debangshu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held, “Materials exist to issue Rule of Contempt against the six persons…In such circumstances, Rule be issued in terms of Form 2 of Appendix I of the Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 of this Hon’ble Court against the six persons…”

The Contemnors were represented by Senior Advocate Abhratosh Majundar, while Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee appeared for the High Court Administration.

On June 6, 2012, the then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basirhat, wrote a letter seeking a reference under the provisions of the Act. The letter referred to a judicial order passed on the same date in a proceeding, which recorded that six persons, against whom show-cause notices were issued, evacuated some accused in a criminal case under the garb of agitation from inside the courtroom, used abusive language against the Judicial Officer, indulged in sloganeering when the Court was in session, obstructed the Court from discharging its judicial functions, coerced litigants to leave the courtroom, and prevented the Judicial Officer from passing any orders. The High Court took cognizance of such an act and issued a show cause notice against them.

The Contemnors initially raised objections regarding limitation and the absence of a Rule being issued against them, however, in the course of arguments, they withdrew such contentions.

The Court observed that the present proceedings were not barred by limitation and stated, “Nonetheless, we find that, there is no question of limitation since the reference was made within time prescribed. The incident is of June 6, 2012 and the first judicial order passed by the High Court in the judicial side is dated July 3, 2012. We are of the view that, the present proceedings are not barred by the limitation prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 since, the reference by the Judicial Officer concerned was made within time. High Court took the cognizance of the reference within time and that, the reference is still pending.”

The Bench noted that materials existed to issue Rule in terms of Form 2 of Appendix I of the Rules under the Act, against the Contemnors.

The Court held, “Rule be issued in terms of Form 2 of Appendix I of the Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 of this Hon’ble Court against the six persons namely, a) Mr. Debabrata Golder, b) Mr. Biswajit Ray, c) Mr. Ismail Miya, d) Mr. Bikash Ghosh, e) Mr. Abdul Mamun and f) Mr. Kalicharan Mondal on the following:-

• evacuated some accused in a criminal case in the garb of agitation from inside the court room,
• used abusive language as against the Judicial Officer inside the Court room,
• indulged in slogan shouting as against the Judicial Officer when the Court was in seisin,
• did not allow the Court to discharge the judicial functioning on that particular date,
• coerced such litigants inside the court room to leave court room and
• prevented the Judicial Officer from passing any orders in any judicial proceeding.”

The Contemnors submitted that the Rule would be accepted by them.

Cause Title: Court on its own motion v. Debabrata Golder & Ors. (CRLCP 8 of 2012)

Appearance:

Contemnors: Senior Advocate Abhratosh Majumdar; Advocates Samim Ahmed, Arka Maiti, Ambiya Khatun, Gulsanwara Pervin, Arka Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Enamul Islam, Nasirul Hoque.

High Court Administration: Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee; Advocates Victor Chatterjee, Shirsho Banerjee

Click here to read/download Order