Advocate spared contempt action after apology, ordered to pay ₹1,000 and plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings

The petitioners, accused in Sessions Case No. 5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, had earlier sought transfer of the Sessions case under Section 407 CrPC and Section 447 BNSS.

The transfer petition was dismissed by order dated 16 April 2026, with costs, and the Court also directed that proceedings be considered against Sri S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, who had appeared for the accused and was alleged to have behaved disrespectfully, threatened the Sessions Court, and obstructed the conduct of the trial.

The earlier order directed consideration of criminal contempt proceedings, action by the Karnataka State Bar Council, and initiation of criminal proceedings under the IPC/BNSS against the Advocate.

Subsequently, the Advocate sought expunging of the directions and, pursuant to the Court’s direction, appeared and filed an affidavit tendering an apology.

On 14 July 2026, the matter was heard on the apology and the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and the Additional Advocate General seeking a lenient view.

Whether the affidavit of apology tendered by Sri S. Rangaswamy, Advocate, ought to be accepted and the directions initiating contempt, disciplinary, and criminal proceedings recalled?

Whether, despite recalling the coercive proceedings, a nominal fine and a direction to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings could be imposed as a cautionary and corrective measure?

Whether the observations and other directions contained in the order dated 16 April 2026 should remain undisturbed?

The Court applied the principle that an advocate is an officer of the Court and owes primary duties to the Court, the client, the legal profession, and society; advocacy must be conducted with dignity, courtesy, restraint, and respect for the administration of justice.

Relying on Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, the Court reiterated that lawyers and litigants cannot browbeat, intimidate, or terrorise judges, while judges must act impartially and courteously.

Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. established the reciprocal duty of courtesy between the Bench and the Bar, without permitting advocates to obstruct judicial proceedings.

The Court also relied on Sanjeev Datta v. Unknown, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India, U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanum Das Khatry, and the Bar Council of India Rules to emphasise the noble and public-utility character of the legal profession and the obligation to maintain professional standards.

Under Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, contempt jurisdiction and disciplinary jurisdiction are distinct: professional misconduct is ordinarily dealt with by the Bar Council, although courts may bring established contumacious conduct to its notice.

The Court further referred to Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration) for the principle that Sessions trials should ordinarily proceed continuously and day-to-day to prevent delay and procedural manoeuvring.

The Court held that the conduct recorded in the Sessions Court’s order sheet justified the earlier protective directions, as permitting intimidation or obstruction of the District Judiciary would undermine judicial dignity and public confidence.

At the same time, after considering the Advocate’s apology and the submissions requesting leniency, the Court exercised restraint and accepted that a harsh continuation of contempt, disciplinary, and criminal proceedings was unnecessary.

The Court therefore recalled only those portions of the 16 April 2026 order that initiated proceedings against the Advocate, while preserving the remaining observations, orders, and findings.

As a warning and symbolic corrective measure, it imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Ballari, and directed the Advocate to plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings.

The direction was linked to the Court’s objective of ensuring future professional discipline without imposing the harsher consequences originally contemplated.

The Advocate was directed to pay a nominal fine of Rs.1,000 to the District Legal Services Authority, Ballari, plant and maintain 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings, and file an affidavit of compliance by 31 October 2026.

The other observations, orders, and findings in the order dated 16 April 2026—including the dismissal of the transfer petition—were kept intact, and the matter was posted for compliance on 2 November 2026.