The Calcutta High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on an advocate for contempt of court in a case related to the pendency of his complaint before the Bar Council of West Bengal [Debanjan Mondal vs Somabrata Mandal].
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya found that advocate Somabrata Mandal had filed an application before the Bar Council of India (BCI) to withdraw his case from the State Bar Council, despite the High Court having reserved its decision on his petition regarding the same issue.
“The very act of the contemnor in filing the same at a juncture when judgment had been reserved in the matter after hearing both sides shows the contumacious action of the contemnor in seeking to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition,” the Court stated.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
The Court added that the lawyer’s action would have been understandable if there had been an inordinate delay between the conclusion of the hearing and the passing of the order. However, it noted that there was only an eight-day gap between the final hearing and the judgment in December 2023.
Mandal’s writ petition concerned the cut-off date for the disposal of complaints before the State Bar Council. Under the law, if a complaint is not disposed of within one year, it automatically transfers to the BCI. While Mandal argued that the one-year period begins from the day the complaint is filed with the State Bar Council, the Court ruled that the period starts only when the State Bar Council refers the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
Despite the reserved ruling, Mandal approached the BCI to withdraw his complaint from the State Bar Council. In its July 12 verdict in the contempt proceedings against Mandal, the Court noted that, given his extensive legal experience, he could not have misinterpreted the Advocates Act provisions so naively.
“There cannot be any manner of doubt that he sought to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition, prior to judgment being delivered in the same,” the Court observed.
The Court further found that contempt continued even after the judgment as Mandal did not withdraw his application from the BCI despite the ruling not being in his favor. He did not even seek an adjournment to await a decision on his appeal against the December 2023 judgment, the Court noted.
“The contemnor boldly proceeded with the application before the Bar Council of India, merely pointing out before the Bar Council of India that an order had been passed in the meantime by this court, apparently to save the contemnor’s skin so that the contemnor was not held guilty of suppression of the order subsequently,” the Court said.
It also noted that the lawyer had complied with the BCI directive to withdraw his appeal from the High Court to facilitate further proceedings before the bar body.
Concluding that there was a willful and deliberate attempt on the lawyer’s part to thwart the court decision of December 2023, the Court said it could not be purged merely by seeking an unqualified apology. However, the Court acknowledged the lawyer’s standing in the legal profession and his years of practice, deciding against imprisonment, which would have an “irreversible adverse effect on his career.”
“In view of the gross contempt committed by the contemnor in his actions as indicated above, the contemnor is directed to deposit a fine of ₹1 lakh to any of the Advocates’ benevolent funds of this court by August 9, 2024,” the Court ordered.
Advocates Krishnaraj Thaker, Rohan Raj, Indranil Munshi, Vedika Bhotika, Anushka Sarkhel, and Soumavo Mukherjee represented the contemnor. Advocates Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Biswajit Kumar, Soumya Chowdhury, and Susera Mitra represented the petitioners in the contempt applications.
