Srinagar, Oct 22, KDC: Observing that judicial officers must exhibit restraint rather than escalate courtroom friction, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a Tribunal’s order that imposed a monetary penalty and issued a contempt notice against a Senior Advocate.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M. A. Chowdhary delivered the judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai. The petitioner had challenged an order passed by the members of a Tribunal, who had slapped a cost of Rs 10,000 on him following a heated exchange during official proceedings.
The High Court took serious exception to the manner in which the Tribunal handled the situation, particularly its failure to provide the senior counsel with an opportunity to defend himself. The bench noted that the impugned order was in “complete breach of principles of natural justice” as the penalty was imposed on the Senior Advocate “without even affording him an opportunity of being heard and that too on a very small matter which ought to have been sorted out in the open Court.”
The resolution of the dispute was preceded by a failed attempt at judicial mediation. On October 13, the High Court had directed both the Tribunal members and the petitioner to appear in person in the judges’ chambers to amicably resolve the controversy. While Ganai appeared for the mediation on Wednesday, the Tribunal members did not attend, despite being served official notices by hand (dasti).
The High Court noted the non-cooperative attitude of the Tribunal members, recording that they even ignored attempts by the court registry to connect them virtually. “Even an attempt made to provide a link so that they could appear through virtual mode, could not succeed as both the Members failed to respond to the telephonic calls given by the Registry,” the bench observed.
Addressing the broader issue of courtroom decorum and the friction that triggered the penalty, the High Court issued a balanced reprimand to both the Bench and the Bar.
“It is not uncommon that during the course of arguments sometimes there is heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench,” the court observed. However, the bench emphasized that presiding officers must avoid personalizing such disputes. “The Bench should forebear from escalating it to the level of initiating contempt proceedings against the advocates or imposing costs on the person of the Advocates. Rather, an effort should always be made to avoid such undesirable situation.”
Directly criticizing the Tribunal’s approach, the court remarked, “Had the learned Members of the Tribunal shown some level of restraint and maturity, the unpleasant situation leading to issuing contempt notice against Senior Advocate could have been avoided.”
Simultaneously, the High Court reminded the legal fraternity of its ethical obligations. The bench stated that lawyers, particularly Senior Advocates, carry a “higher responsibility to ensure that the dignity and decorum of Court is maintained at all costs and small differences in perception do not escalate into creating unsavoury and unpleasant atmosphere thus driving a wedge between the Bar and the Bench.”
Concluding that the Tribunal’s order was plainly contrary to the law, the High Court chose to bring the curtain down on the controversy. The bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the contested order, effectively clearing the Senior Advocate of the penalty and the contempt proceedings. (KDC)
