The Allahabad High Court has initiated Contempt proceedings against an Advocate for interrupting Court's proceedings and exhorting the members of the Bar who were waiting for their turn to boycott the hearing.

The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that the counsel attempted to overawe and pressurize the Court to hear him and his body language and mannerism was obnoxious since the beginning.

"He created a noisy pandemonium in the Court room interrupting the hearings. His contemptuous behavior not only disrupted the working but also attempted to bring down authority and dignity of the Court. The lost time cannot be made up in any manner.", the bench noted.

In this case, the AGA, O.P. Mishra, had submitted that the name of the juvenile has been disclosed in the revision memo and therefore, before the matter is heard, that mistake is to be corrected.

The Court noted that the Apex Court, by its judgment in Shilpa Mittal vs. State of NCT of Delhi had observed that the name of the child in conflict with law is not to be disclosed to give effect to the provisions of Section 74 of the Act of 2015 and various other judgments of the Courts.

However, the moment the mistake was pointed out by the AGA, the Counsel for the revisionist -Sunil Kumar retorted in a loud voice.

The Court observed that "The moment I finished this dictation, he turned towards me to remark "I know no such law. I am not bound to obey your order. You will have to hear me." I tried to counsel him at first saying that you need to correct the title and that I am fixing a short date for hearing, to which, he gave a disdainful reply at the top of his voice".

The Court noted that his conduct interrupted the Court's proceedings for about 20-25 minutes and the rest of the matter could not be taken up during this period.

The Court observed that the lost time cannot be made up in any manner, hence the Court proceeded with contempt of court proceedings against the Advocate.

The Court directed the issuance of a notice to the said Advocate giving him an opportunity to explain as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court.

The Court further directed "The Registry is directed to allot appropriate number to the contempt proceeding being drawn against Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate and place the matter before the appropriate bench on the next date fixed."

Cause Title- Mehul Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Click here to read/download the Order