The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticised an advocate for allegedly using objectionable slang against a judge after his plea was rejected, and directed him to personally apologise and submit a written undertaking that such conduct would not be repeated. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee said the conduct of a member of the Bar could not be taken lightly, particularly because it could damage the reputation of the institution. The proceedings concern advocate Firdous Samim, who was accused of using scandalous and unparliamentary language during a hearing before a single judge on July 23.
The High Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the incident on July 30 and issued notice to Samim, asking him to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
The Court had noted that the hearing was being live-streamed and viewed the alleged remarks as a serious breach of courtroom discipline and decorum. When the case came up before the Division Bench on Wednesday, the judges emphasised that Samim was a practising advocate and not a layperson unfamiliar with courtroom standards. The Bench observed that the alleged remark came after a prayer made by the lawyer had been refused by the single judge. It also noted that Samim was unwilling to repeat the slang in open court while seeking forgiveness for having used it earlier.
The Court did not accept the suggestion that the alleged slang had not been directed at the judge. According to the Bench, the remark was addressed to the judge and could even be interpreted as reflecting on other judges of the High Court. While acknowledging that lawyers often work under considerable pressure and can become irritated during proceedings, the Court said such circumstances could not justify a breach of courtroom decorum.
The Bench stressed that lawyers have appropriate ways of expressing disagreement with judicial decisions. It observed that advocacy requires counsel to put forward their disagreement respectfully instead of resorting to intemperate language.
The Court also questioned whether an unconditional apology by itself would be sufficient in the circumstances, observing that allowing such an incident to pass without adequate action could set a poor example for other members of the Bar.
It eventually directed Samim to approach the single judge concerned and tender an apology. He was also asked to give a written undertaking that he would not repeat such conduct. The Division Bench said it would consider whether to continue with the contempt proceedings after the apology and written undertaking are placed before it.
Senior Advocate Jayanta Mitra represented Samim during the hearing.