The recent pronouncement by the Bombay High Court underscores that Advocates endorsing applications or pleadings containing derogatory remarks against the Court, with the intent to manipulate circumstances for a judge's recusal, may be found guilty of Contempt of Court.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh S. Patil and Justice Nitin W. Sambre, made reference to a Supreme Court judgment M.Y. Shareef & Another v. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur & Others [1955 SCR (1) 757], emphasizing that advocates should refrain from making scandalous allegations and are obligated to advise clients against such practices.

The case in question involved a praecipe, an application requesting the circulation of a matter, accompanied by a newspaper article casting doubt on Justice Sambre's integrity. The article suggested that the judge would grant bail based on a personal connection with the petitioner, implying bias. The Court issued a Contempt notice due to these allegations.

During the proceedings, Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani and Advocate Zoheb Merchant, who worked under her, affirmed the accuracy of the scandalous statements in the praecipe. The Court deemed their conduct as an attempt to scandalize the court and hinder the judges from taking up certain matters. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent, both lawyers tendered unconditional apologies through affidavits.

However, the Court recorded the lawyers' conduct, noting that they persisted in submitting the praecipe despite advice from the Registry. The Court highlighted the disrespectful demeanor of Advocate Minal Jaiwant Chandnani during earlier proceedings. Despite the apologies, the Court emphasized the need to investigate the sincerity of the apologies and issued contempt notices to the lawyers and the respondent named in the scandalous article.

The Court directed the Pimpri-Chinchwad Commissioner of Police to serve the contempt notice to the respondent, Bhisham Pahuja, and gather information about the newspaper 'Rajdharma' that published the article. The hearing was deferred to ascertain whether contempt notices should be issued to the lawyers and the respondent, along with the publisher and editor of 'Rajdharma.'

The matter is scheduled for further consideration on January 12, 2024.

Case: Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement Through Its Deputy Director And Ors.

CR. WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2466 OF 2023.