Advocates Equally Responsible For Protecting Dignity & Majesty Of Courts: Gauhati High Court Issues Notice To Bar President In Contempt Case

The Petition was filed by Advocate General Devajit Saikia, alleging that the President of the Bar Association did not take any action against the advocates, who made derogatory remarks in the sit-in-demonstration organized by the Bar Association. The Court stated that “the leader of the Bar Association cannot escape from his responsibility of maintaining decorum during a demonstration organized by the Bar Association simply by saying that he is not responsible for the derogatory remarks made by any of the Member of the Association.”

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair remarked, “The tendency of ignoring the attempts on the part of any person, which amounts to scandalizing the Court or lowering the authority of the Court, would result in erosion of faith of the millions of people in the judicial institutions. It is not only the responsibility of the Bench to ensure that the dignity and majesty of the Courts are to be protected but the advocates and the Associations representing them are also equally responsible for protecting the dignity and the majesty of the Courts.”

Advocate General Devajit Saikia appeared in-person, while Advocate Kamal Nayan Choudhury represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Advocate General became aware of these remarks through video clippings circulated on social media, reportedly from a program called "Mejmel" broadcast by "Prag News".

The specific allegations against the advocates included the use of intemperate language, scandalous allegations, and attributing motives to Judges. One advocate was accused of stating he had "positive evidence" that a Judge "behaves like a CID," and another is alleged to have nicknamed a Judge "chika," a vernacular term for "rat".

It was argued that these statements scandalized the Court, prejudiced judicial proceedings, and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court has issued notices to the alleged contemnors to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.

“In the present cases also, apart from distancing the views expressed by the alleged contemnors, the Bar Association has not issued any statement of condemning the said conduct of the advocates. It is difficult to understand that even the show cause notice was issued to only the respondent No.1 in Cont. Case (Crl.) No.2/2025 but no such notice was issued to the respondent No.1 in Cont. Case (Crl.) No.1/2025 for the reasons best known to the Association,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court ordered, “As we have already recorded our prima facie satisfaction, it is directed that notices be issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both the contempt cases under Section 17 of the 1971 Act. The notices are made returnable on 13.05.2025. Registry to follow the mandate of Section 17 of the 1971 Act, while issuing notices to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both the contempt cases…Considering the provisions of the Information and Technology Act, 2002 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rule, 2011, we deem it appropriate to direct the YouTube as well as Prag News to remove the videos containing the alleged statements made by the contemnors, from their channels forthwith.”

Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter on May 13, 2025.

Cause Title: Advocate General, Assam & Anr. v. Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya & Anr. (Cont.Cas(Crl.) Nos.1 & 2 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order