HC issues show-cause notice to advocate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to an advocate to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for making “scandalous” remarks and browbeating HC judges and a judicial officer.The notice came on her application seeking directions to advance the date of hearing in a pending matter.Holding that the language and assertions in the plea were a direct assault on the integrity of the adjudicatory system, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed: “It is clear that the reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process.”

The petitioner-advocate, appearing in person, was seeking directions to advance the hearing of her case listed for October 31. Among other things, the advocate stated that she would be left with the only option to make two HC Judges and an Additional Sessions Judge a party for filing an SLP before the Supreme Court.

She had added that justice had deliberately and intentionally been denied to her by curtailing her fundamental and legal rights. Her applications and main petition were delayed just to cause harassment and pressure her to withdraw complaints against an IPS officer.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted that a perusal of the head note to the application for advancing the hearing indicated that an attempt had been made by the petitioner to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her cases.

Justice Brar asserted: “The unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts undermines the dignity of the rule of law. Furthermore, such scandalous remarks have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.”

Justice Brar observed that the petitioner failed to justify why the matter should be advanced, but the Bench nevertheless took up the case on her insistence. She was also offered assistance from the High Court Legal Aid Services.

Noting that the petitioner was a qualified advocate and not a layperson, the court ruled out the possibility of ignorance. “A perusal of the record indicates no reasons that could justify making such scandalous allegations… she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism. Thus, this court is constrained to note that the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,” the court asserted.