18 Jan 2024 4:32 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 16) expressed its dissatisfaction over the nature of the apology tendered by the lawyer who had been held in custody for his objectionable remarks against the Trial Court and High Court Judges during one of his pleadings.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, referring to the apology filed by the lawyer, said “ He says I am saying this in bonafide mistake.. this is not an apology..how can he say that it was unintentional and bonafide towards the whole judiciary”
Unhappy with the contents of the apology as filed in the affidavit, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed that the petitioner (lawyer) be given another opportunity to make a 'contrite expression of apology' .
The Court further noted the submissions of Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, counsel who appeared during the hearing and contended that the petitioner has made unfounded and reckless allegations against him in his capacity as Additional Public Prosecutor as also against Mr Kanhaiya Singhal, the counsel who was appearing for the Delhi High Court.
The bench directed the petitioner to deal with the above aspect as well in his apology.
The matter is now to be heard on January 19
A division bench of the Delhi High Court in an order dated January 9, held the petitioner-lawyer to be guilty of criminal contempt and awarded him the punishment of 6 months with a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default to undergo 7 days of imprisonment.
The issue arose when the petitioner, a 60-year-old lawyer, made caustic remarks against the trial judge in the pleadings in an appeal filed against the conviction in a criminal case. Although the High Court warned him, he said that he was standing by the remarks.
On the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija submitted that the lawyer has been sentenced to prison. After the senior counsel said that the petitioner is now feeling remorseful, the bench directed the contemnor to tender an unconditional apology before the judges of the High Court and District Judiciary against whom he had made such allegations.