NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
Common Law in India – 1st Trimester Project
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Decided on: 13.07.2016
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel, JJ.
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
SAKET KUMAR RAO PROF. (DR.) GHAYUR ALAM
SECTION- B
ROLL NO. – 2017BALLB79
ENROLLMENT NO. - A-1855
An Analysis of
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA …… APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …… RESPONDENTS
(MANU/SC/0730/2016)
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=43757
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal 63 of 2016
NAME OF JUDGES: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel, JJ.
DECIDED ON: 05.07.2016
SUBJECT: CONTEMPT OF COURT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No. Particulars Page No.
1 CONCRETE FACTS
2 MATERIAL FACTS
3 QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ANSWERS TO
THESE QUESTIONS
4 CONCRETE JUDGEMENT
5 RATIO DECIDENDI
6 OBITER DICTA
CONCRETE FACTS
(i) On 16.04.2003, while the Civil Judge was hearing a suit titled as "Yaduveer Singh
Chauhan v. The Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation", Shri Mahipal Singh Rana,
Advocate appeared in the Court, and used intemperate language against the Judge.
(ii) On 13.05.2003, the Judge was hearing another case titled as "Roshanlal v. Nauvat
Ram", Shri Mahipal Singh Rana Advocate appeared in the Court and spoke in a loud
voice.
(iii) The Civil Judge made a reference letter to the High Court through the learned
District Judge, Etah (U.P.) on 7.6.2003 recording two separate incidents dated
16.4.2003 and 13.5.2003, which had taken place in his Court in which the Appellant
had appeared before him and conducted himself in a manner which constituted
"Criminal Contempt" Under Section 2 (c) of the Act.
(iv)The counsel from the Appellant side contended that the Appellant was not at all
present before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah on 16.4.2003 and
13.5.2003 and with an oblique motive the entire contempt proceedings were initiated
against the Appellant.
(v) It was also submitted that the Appellant was 84 years of age and keeping that in
mind, the sentence for imprisonment may be set aside and instead, the fine may be
increased.
(vi)On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted
that the judgment by the High Court was just, legal and proper and the same was
delivered after due deliberation and careful consideration of the relevant facts.
(vii) Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Union of India,
submitted that normally in case of all professions, the apex body of the professionals
takes action against the erring professional and in case of legal profession, the Bar
Council of India takes disciplinary action and punishes the concerned advocate if he
is guilty of any misconduct etc.
(viii) The Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India submitted that Section
24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for a bar against admission of a person as
an advocate if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
MATERIAL FACTS
(i) The fact that Mahipal Singh Rana was present in the two above mentioned instances
is material.
(ii) The letter of the Civil Judge proved that not only the Advocate was present in the
court but the Appellant had also misbehaved and misconducted in such a manner
that his conduct was contemptuous and therefore, the proceedings under the Act had
to be initiated against him.
(iii) The appellant in both the instances used the language which was
contemptuous in nature and his behaviour involved moral turpitude.
(iv)The view that no error has been committed by the High Court while coming to the
conclusion that the Appellant had committed contempt of Court under the provisions
of the Act.
(v) The appellant’s affidavit in support of stay vacation/modification and supplementary
affidavit did not show any remorse and he had justified himself again and again,
which also shows that he had no regards for the majesty of law.
(vi)The advanced age of the appellant was seen material by the court.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS
(i) Whether the appellant can be convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude
Section 24A of the Advocates Act provides for a bar on enrollment as an
advocate of a person involving moral turpitude.
The contemptuous act and the misbehavior of the appellant was
unpardonable. An advocate is aware of the legal position and the conduct
expected from him is higher than others.
(ii) Whether on conviction for criminal contempt, the Appellant can be allowed to
practice.
As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct the license of the
appellant will remain suspended for further five years.
Bar against enrollment should also be deemed to bar against
continuation.
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT
(i) Conviction of the Appellant is justified and is upheld.
(ii) Sentence of imprisonment awarded to the Appellant is set aside in view of his
advanced age but sentence of fine and default sentence are upheld. Further
direction that the Appellant shall not be permitted to appear in courts in District
Etah until he purges himself of contempt is also upheld.
(iii) Under Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the enrollment of the Appellant will
stand suspended for two years from the date of this order.
(iv) As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, the license of the Appellant
will remain suspended for further five years.
RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE
(i) Once an advocate is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, his licence to
practice will stand suspended for a period of two years.
(ii) The averments regarding the complaints cannot be a defence for the appellant. Even
if we assume those averments about the complaints to be correct, then also, the
appellant cannot use such contemptuous language in the Court against the presiding
Judge.
(iii) The first thing to be done in that direction when a contemnor is found guilty
of a criminal contempt is to implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his
conduct which the court found to have amounted to contempt of court. Next step is
to seek pardon from the court concerned for what he did on the ground that he really
and genuinely repented and that he has resolved not to commit any such act in
future.
(iv)It is not enough that person tenders an apology. The apology tendered should
impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court, on being impressed of his
genuineness, accepts the apology then it could be said that the contemnor has purged
himself of the guilt.
OBITER DICTA
Legal profession being the most important component of justice delivery system, it must
continue to perform its significant role and regulatory mechanism and should not be seen to
be wanting in taking prompt action against any malpractice. The court has noticed the
inaction of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Bar Council of India in spite of
direction of the High Court and in spite of notice to the Bar Council of India by this Court.
The court has also noticed the failure of all concerned to advert to the observations made by
the Gujarat High Court 33 years ago. In view of above, the court requested the Law
Commission of India and the Government of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to
Regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned at an early date.
Thus, there appears to be urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Act dealing
with regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in
consultation with all concerned.
