Pressure on opposing counsel during proceedings can amount to contempt when it obstructs the administration of justice.
Threats or pressure directed at opposing counsel during pending proceedings may amount to contempt where they are calculated to deter fearless professional performance and obstruct the administration of justice. The court accepted the judge's report and the defendant's admissions, finding that the conduct was not a mere assertion of rights but part of a course of pressure against the advocate, reinforced by its occurrence in court and the surrounding conduct. The jurisdictional objection based on section 228 of the Indian Penal Code failed because the conduct was directed at an advocate, not at a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding.
Issues: (i) Whether the defendant's statements and conduct in court, directed against the opposite party's advocate, amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the administration of justice; (ii) Whether the High Court's jurisdiction was excluded because the alleged act was said to fall within section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue (i): Whether the defendant's statements and conduct in court, directed against the opposite party's advocate, amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the administration of justice.
Analysis: A threat or pressure brought upon counsel during the pendency of proceedings may constitute contempt if it is calculated to deter counsel from fearlessly performing professional duties and thereby tends to obstruct the course of justice. The Court accepted the judge's report in substance, relied on the defendant's own admissions, and held that the statements were not a mere assertion of legal rights but part of a course of conduct designed to pressurize the advocate. The fact that the conduct occurred in court, in the course of argument, and was followed by further prosecutions reinforced the conclusion that it had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
Conclusion: The defendant was guilty of contempt of court.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's jurisdiction was excluded because the alleged act was said to fall within section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code applies to intentional insult or interruption of a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding. The impugned threat was directed not against the judge but against the advocate, who is not a public servant for that purpose. The statutory bar in section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act therefore did not apply.
Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed.
Final Conclusion: The contempt petition succeeded, and the defendant was punished by fine and costs rather than imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: A threat or pressure directed at counsel during pending proceedings, if it is intended or calculated to deter counsel from performing professional duties and thereby obstructs the administration of justice, constitutes contempt of court; section 228 of the Indian Penal Code does not bar such jurisdiction when the conduct is directed at an advocate and not at a public servant sitting in court.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
