Court on Its Own Motion v. Deepak Khosla

3. On 06.02.2009 notice under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was issued: the order of 28.01.2009 was i) treated as a statement containing the facts, and ii) it became notice to the contemnor of the charge of having committed contempt of court. The respondent was required to submit his response thereto by way of affidavit. However, the respondent never did so, despite the case having been listed for 75 times, over a span of more than a decade.

4. On 06.02.2009, the respondent had stated that he had tendered an unconditional apology before the learned Single Judge and was awaiting orders to be passed thereon. Instead of a reply to the charge of contempt, the respondent moved sundry applications and submissions about the manner in which the contempt proceedings ought to be conducted. The order dated 06.02.2009 reads as under: "1. The contemnor is present in person. The contemnor states that copy of the order dated 28th January, 2009 has been received by him.

2. The order dated 28.1.2009 is treated as a statement containing the facts as also the notice to the contemnor as the charge of having committed contempt of court; requiring the contemnor to submit his response thereto by means of an affidavit.

3. Needful be done within four weeks.

4. The contemnor states that he has filed an affidavit tendering un unqualified apology to Gita Mittal, J. and requests that it may be clarified that the cognizance of the alleged contempt committed by the contemnor by the Division Bench would not preclude Gita Mittal, J. from accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor and passing appropriate orders thereon.

5. We clarify that it would be open to the contemnor to take such steps to purge himself before Gita Mittal, J.

6. List on 13th April, 2009."

5. This petition was listed about 75 times, in a period spanning over a decade. The respondent has filed no reply to the charge. The statements of facts are lucid and the charge of his having committed the contempt of court is clearly proven. The charge against the respondent speaks for itself i.e. he not only used insulting language and cast aspersions on counsel appearing on the other side but made allegations that were scandalous,for creating prejudice and embarrassment to counsel who weresimply discharging their professional duties towards their clients and their duty as officers of the court. During the court proceedings, the respondent spoke in a loud voice, and every now and then rose from his seat and started gesticulating, which was unbecoming of a counsel in a court of law. He also stated that the counsel of the other side were lying. This accusation would be a matter of concern and objectionable to any counsel. The conduct of the respondent in standing up,gesticulating when other side was arguing, raising of his voice and not permitting the court proceedings to continue, was clear obstruction and interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. The incident has been recorded by the learned Single Judge.The court is of the view that this conduct constitutes criminal contempt of court.

6. However, on the date of the said incident, the petitioner had drawn up an affidavit of apology and he had expressed his heart-felt, unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for what transpired in the Court. In the affidavit he had also averred that he had orally expressed his apology before the Court in the post-lunch session when the Court re-convened at around 3.40 p.m. This apology was tendered in Company Application NO. 189/2009 dated 28.01.2009, which averred as under: “….2. That at the outset, the applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to formally submit his unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for any offence, or even the mildest of inconvenience, he may have caused this Hon'ble Court in the forenoon session of the hearing today. All statements made by him during the course of oral arguments during the forenoon session were relating to very fundamental points of procedure prescribed in law, and were only intended bona fide to assist this Hon'ble Court in appreciating the extent of the gross abuse of process of law being repeatedly indulged in by the other party, and were not intended by the applicant to obstruct proceedings in any way, rather, were intended to assist in the proceedings go forward lawfully. However, if, on account of any overly- impassioned plea put forward by him to this effect, if he had indulged in more emphasis on this aspect that what was considered suitable or appropriate by this Hon'ble Court, he humbly and most respectfully places by means of the present application the formal tendering of the heart-felt and unqualified, unconditional and unreserved apology for his conduct, and which apology he had orally submitted before this Hon'ble Court today when it reconvened for the post-lunch session at around 3:40 p.m.

3. That as a matter of fact, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to start hearing the matter today at around 12:20 p.m., and then rise at around 12:40 p.m., and reconvened at around 3:40 p.m., and immediately upon its doing so, the applicant, with the prior permission of this Hon'ble Court to address it, orally tendered his unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apology for the events that transpired between 12:20 p.m. and 12:40 p.m. even before the order sought to be recalled by means of the present application and announced….”

7. The respondent further avers in his affidavit that the he has highest respect for the judiciary. In effect, he stated that he promptly realized his error, that his overly-impassioned conduct was unbecoming. He has otherwise stated that he was not fully familiar with court proceedings and the courtesies which are due towards all parties and counsel appearing before a Court. When the said application was placed before the learned Single Judge on 19.07.2011, the Court noted as under: “41. Before parting with this order, I am compelled to note that despite his extreme conduct noticed above, so far as the hearing on the present application is concerned, the applicant displayed circumspection and, more important, control in his submissions on the present application before this court. This fact may be considered by the Division Bench while considering appropriate orders on the present application.

42. In view of the above, it is directed that: - (i) the Registry shall place the present application before the Division Bench considering the matter pursuant to the order dated 28th of January, 2009 when the same is next listed.”

8. What emanates from the preceding discussion is that the respondent got carried away during the proceedings because it concerned the interests of his family members. He faltered at that critical juncture where personal interest and duty of a counsel to the court, should part ways. He realized that he had slipped in his professional conduct. He promptly expressed his heartfelt, unreserved, unqualified apology, to the learned Single Judge when the Court reconvened at 3.40 p.m. the same afternoon. He expressed his regret at not having exercised due caution. He has tendered his unqualified and unreserved apology before this Court as well. He emphasizes that a lawyer is an officer of the Court first, and the role should always be discharged with due responsibility.

9. The court is of the view that the respondent’s apology was prompt, unreserved and unqualified. His contrition is evident. Interests of justice will be served by accepting the apology. It is accepted so. The petition is disposed-off in the above terms.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. JANUARY 18, 2021 sb