While refusing to recall an order referring an Advocate’s case to the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters, the Allahabad High Court has held that a contemnor cannot be purged of contempt by mere apology, and he should not escape scot-free where an attack is made on the Court's motive.

The High Court was considering a recall application filed by the Contemnor seeking withdrawal of the written submission filed by him. The petitioner also sought the dropping of the contempt proceedings and the recalling of the order passed by the court referring the matter to the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters.

The Single Bench of Justice Siddharth affirmed, “Where the integrity of a court is attacked, the authority and dignity of the court are jeopardised. The written submission dated 17.05.2025 submitted by the contemnor was a clear imputation against the integrity of the court and the contemnor cannot be purged of contempt by mere apology though the Division Bench may take note of the apology for the purpose of mitigating the sentence to be imposed on him. In the opinion of this court where the allegations of are recklessly made by a person against the court and attack is made on the court's motive while discharging its judicial duties the contemnor should not escape scot-free.”

Advocate Rakesh Kumar Rathore represented the Applicant, while Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The applicant Contemnor, in a bail application, filed a written submission making serious allegations against the court, and, therefore, reference was made to the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters in this court. The contemnor, who is the counsel for the informant in a bail application, was not willing to argue the bail application on the date fixed. The earlier counsel for the informant had also sought adjournments earlier also and the bail application was pending for hearing since April 20, 2024. After being listed peremptorily on two dates, the bail application was argued by the counsel for the applicant as well as the counsel for the informant/contemnor and judgment was reserved.

Liberty was granted to the counsel for the informant to file his written submission since he was trying to take an adjournment. After considering the written submission, the High Court found scandalous allegations made therein amounting to criminal contempt, hence the matter was referred to the Division Bench. The High Court also released the aforesaid bail application by the same order to be placed before the Chief Justice for nominating it to another Bench. Thereafter, on the pretext of the pendency of the recall application, the contemnor delayed the hearing of the bail application for a further period of more than five months.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that his prayer for withdrawal of the written submission could not be permitted, nor the order deserved to be recalled since the basis of reference made to the Division Bench was the written submission itself. “It will set a very bad precedent and the lawyers like Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, the contemnor will adopt this tactics for getting the case released from the Bench, if it is not favourably inclined, and after institution of contempt proceedings they will pray for pardon”, the Bench stated.

Considering the fact that the contemnor made a statement before the court that he had profound respect for the court and he tendered an unqualified apology for the same, expressing his regret for his action done in writing, the Court accepted his apology. However, the Bench refused to permit the applicant to withdraw the written submission and recall the order. “His unconditional apology is accepted. The part of the order dated 28.05.2025 referring the matter to the Bench for hearing criminal contempt matters and to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall not be effected by the acceptance of unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor before this court”, it held.

The Bench further asserted, “In the present case court is not inclined to reject this apology of contemnor as lacking in bona fides. But merely accepting the apology does not necessarily purge a contemnor of the contempt of court which he has committed.”

It was the contemnor’s case that after accepting the apology, it was not open for the court in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to still award punishment to the contemnor. Referring to the proviso to Section 12, the Bench explained that a discretion is left to the court even after accepting an apology, either to refrain from awarding any punishment to the contemnor or to award him lenient punishment.

“The rationale of such provision is clear, depending as it does on the gravity of the contempt committed by a person. If the contempt is of a minor nature his unconditional apology may in the opinion of the court be sufficient to purge him of his contempt. If, on the other hand, the contempt is of a grave nature, mere acceptance of apology may not be adequate to meet the ends of justice; it may not purge the contemnor. In that case there is nothing to preclude the court from awarding punishment. The contemnor is not right in submitting that the acceptance of an apology per se makes it obligatory on the court to discharge the contemnor The only bar imposed on the power of the court in the matter of accepting an apology vide explanation to Section 12 of the Act is that an apology cannot be rejected on the ground that it is conditional”, the order read.

As per the Bench, the contemnor had committed grave contempt. He scandalised the court and made scurrilous attacks on the court after he failed to get the hearing of bail application adjourned. “It is duty of court to see that such attempts are suppressed in the larger interest of the Judiciary / Country”, the Bench observed while partly allowing the recall application to the extent it submitted apology. “Regarding purging of contemnor for contempt, it is for the contempt court to decide, in view of the legal position in this regard found by this court and considered hereinabove”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:193292)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar, Shashi Kumar Mishra

Respondent: Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla, Government Advocate, Narendra Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Siddharth

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.