On October 25, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a groundbreaking verdict, finding an advocate guilty of contempt. The advocate was held responsible for tarnishing the court's reputation and undermining its authority by submitting false complaints and making unfounded allegations against judges.

Manoj Kumar Shrivastava, the respondent in this case, is an advocate who became the subject of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the court. These proceedings were instigated in response to a string of complaints and letters that contained disrespectful language directed at judges. Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra were the presiding judges handling the matter.

The bench declared, "The language employed in the complaints unmistakably demonstrates that it constitutes an act of scandalizing and diminishing the authority of the court, thereby falling within the purview of the provisions outlined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

Shrivastava's complaints contained grave accusations, such as attributing partiality, corruption, bias, and improper motives to judges. These allegations were determined to be in contravention of the law because they not only impugned the reputation of the court but also undermined its authority.

The judgment referenced the 1974 case of Baradakanta Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa, emphasizing that when there is a purposeful effort to defame the court or its judges, it raises significant concerns related to the independence of the judiciary and has an adverse impact on public confidence in the legal system.

The Court underscored that, as an advocate, Shrivastava held a dual role. He was not solely an agent of his client, but also an officer of the court, and thus, he bore a responsibility to uphold the administration of justice.

Although the advocate had submitted applications to involve the Judges as parties in the contempt proceedings, the Court rejected these applications, asserting that it is not practicable to entertain such requests in a case of criminal contempt.

The judgment underscored that an advocate should exercise careful consideration of the language used in applications and conduct proceedings with a sense of respect and prudence. This is because contemptuous behavior disrupts the proper flow of judicial proceedings and hinders the administration of justice.

In summary, the judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in this contempt case establishes a precedent for the expected conduct within the legal profession. It underscores the importance of safeguarding the judiciary's reputation from baseless attacks on its independence, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal system.

Here are the main highlights of the judgment:

1. The respondent was convicted of committing criminal contempt as per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in relation to four distinct complaints, each corresponding to a different date.

2. The respondent was mandated to pay a fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-, with Rs. 1,00,000/- allocated for each of the previously mentioned complaints. This fine was to be submitted to the M.P. High Court Bar Association within one month of the order being pronounced.

3. If the fine was not deposited within the stipulated time frame, it would lead to one month of imprisonment for each of the cited complaints.

4. Nevertheless, the respondent was acquitted of criminal contempt in relation to complaints dated 01.12.2011, 10.12.2011, and 03.07.2012, and the contempt proceedings for these complaints were concluded.

Case: IN REFERENCE Vs MANOJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.1 of 2013.

Read/Download Order: In reference Vs. Manoj Kumar Srivastava