The Jharkhand High Court dropped contempt proceedings against an Advocate observing that a sincere and meaningful apology tendered at the initial stage, accompanied by an assurance not to repeat such an offence, is a very relevant factor in the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Petitioner, a practising advocate, approached the High Court, seeking modification of an earlier order containing adverse remarks against him.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “It is true that a sincere apology does not entitle a contemner as a matter of right to the remission of sentence. However, this is a sincere meaningful apology tendered at the initial stage with the assurance not to repeat such offence, certainly is a very relevant factor in the proceedings under this Act which need to be considered and which ought to weigh with the Court while passing orders of punishment under this Act.”

Advocate Ritu Kumar represented the Petitioner, while APP Kumari Rashmi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as presented by the Petitioner was that on the fateful day, some untoward incident occurred in the court proceeding inadvertently by the petitioner, who is arguing counsel in both the ABAs and in view of a request made by the Members of Bar, the Court did not pass any sentence order. However, the matter was referred to the Jharkhand State Bar Council, considering that the said Body is the disciplinary authority of the advocates. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the advocate had tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology for such an act, which happened on that day.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the order in question, dated September 25, 2025, was passed considering that the law of criminal contempt is concerned with the protection and the maintenance of public confidence in the Courts of law, and it is primarily for this reason that the law of criminal contempt forbids the plea of justification.

“It is manifest that once such a plea is allowed to be raised then far from building up and maintaining the public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the courts of law it would enable litigants to rake up controversies and throw mud which in the ultimate analysis would erode the same confidence and trust in the courts of law which is sought to be protected by criminal contempt. It is for this reason that criminal contempt is on a signicantly distinct footing from the ordinary law of criminal defamation. In that background the said order has been passed”, the Bench explained.

The Bench further stated, “The jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is regulated by well recognised and sound principles of law. The Court has a vide discretion to exercise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case, to hold, whether the contemner should be punished for committing contempt of Court or the apology tendered on his behalf should be accepted. But where the Court intends to accept the apology tendered by the contemner, it has to be satisfied that such an apology is bona fide and is sincere repentance of his deed or omission.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the contemner had given or tendered a sincere apology and had satisfied the Court of his undertaking to never repeat such an act, especially when on an earlier occasion, it was a bona fide error on ill-advice received by him. The sincere intention, which was stated to be the seed of offering such an apology, was, according to the Bench, fully satisfied in this case.

The Bench thus held, “In view of the above considerations and in view of the subsequent steps taken by Mr. Rakesh Kumar along with Members of Bar as well as the President and Secretary of Jharkhand High Court Advocate Association as also the averments made in the present Cr.M.P. requesting for exempting the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the matter need not to be proceeded further. The cause of justice would be subserved in adequate measure, if the apology tendered by the petitioner is accepted and proceedings are dropped.”

Accepting the apology tendered by the petitioner, the Bench ordered the expunction of the adverse remark made against the petitioner in the order dated September 25, 2025. “The Jharkhand State Bar Council is requested not to proceed against the petitioner further as the unconditional apology has been accepted by this Court”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand (Case No.: Cr. M.P. No.3017 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ritu Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar, Navin Kumar Raj

Respondent: APP Kumari Rashmi

Click here to read/download Judgment


Jharkhand High CourtJustice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

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.