Calcutta HC imposes ₹1L fine on lawyer

The Calcutta High Court has imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a lawyer for contempt of court in connection with the handling of a complaint pending before the West Bengal Bar Council.

A bench of Judge Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that he had filed a petition before the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking withdrawal of his case from the State Bar Council despite the High Court reserving its decision on the same issue. The Court said: “this court is of the opinion that there has been a deliberate and deliberate attempt on the part of the despicable party to frustrate the order of this court dated 13 December 2023, which was passed in the petition, which cannot be said to have been struck down by mere lip–service to the term “apology” by demanding an unconditional apology by submitting a supplemental sworn statement today.”

The Court added:“The act of the contemptible party in filing it at a time when judgment in the case was reserved after both parties had been heard, shows the recalcitrant act of the contemptible party in attempting to frustrate the outcome of the petition.”

Lawyer Deepan Sarkar appeared for the applicant and Advocate Krishnaraj Thaker appeared for the defendant.

The Court noted that only eight days had elapsed between the conclusion of the last hearing in December 2023 and the pending judgment on his petition. The petition primarily concerned the timeline for handling complaints at the State Bar Council, under which complaints not resolved within one year are automatically transferred to the BCI.

He argued that the one-year period commences on the date on which the complaint is filed with the State Council of Advocates, but the Court ruled that this period only commences when the Council submits the case to its Disciplinary Committee.

The Court noted his considerable experience in the legal profession and held that he could not have so naively misinterpreted the provisions of the Advocates Act. It highlighted his deliberate attempt to obstruct the forthcoming judgment of the Court by approaching the BCI for withdrawal of his complaint.

The Court said: “The contemptible party has not only refrained from withdrawing or seeking adjournment of its application before the Bar Council of India (BCI), but has also complied with the direction of the Bar Council of India regarding the application of the contemptible party by withdrawing the appeal to enable further proceedings before the BCI.“

With regard to his actions before the BCI, the Court noted that he had complied with the BCI’s directions to withdraw his appeal to the High Court, with the aim of facilitating further proceedings before the Bar. The Court said: “the despicable man boldly went ahead with the application to the Bar Council of India, merely pointing out that in the meantime an order had been passed by this Court, apparently to save the skin of the despicable man so that the despicable man would not be found guilty later on of quashing the order.”

Considering the gravity of the contempt, the court ordered him to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to an Advocates’ Benevolent Fund of the Calcutta High Court by August 9, 2024. The court refrained from imposing a jail term, saying: “This court is not unaware of the contemptuous person’s position in the legal profession and the number of years the contemptuous person is behind in his position. This position, although his arch-enemy in the contempt application, justifies a somewhat more lenient view of the matter, since if the contemptuous person is sent to prison, it may have an irreversible negative effect on his career.”

Title of the cause: Debanjan Mondal v. Somabrata Mandal

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates for Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Biswajit Kumar, Soumya Chowdhury and Susera Mitra

Defendant: Supporters of Krishnaraj Thaker, Rohan Raj, Indranil Munshi, Vedika Bhotika, Anushka Sarkhel and Soumavo Mukherjee