Supreme Court sets aside fines for contempt, emphasizes sincere apology. Warning issued to counsel.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the fines imposed on the appellants for contempt of court. The Court accepted the unqualified apology tendered by the appellants as sufficient to purge the contempt, emphasizing the importance of a sincere expression of regret. The Court noted that the appellants' conduct was not wilful and that they were under a mistaken belief about their professional duties. The Court issued a warning to the counsel regarding clarity in their professional duties and made no order as to costs in the proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by senior members of the Nagpur Bar and their client.
2. Allegations of bias and prejudice against the Judges.
3. Application for transfer of case to another Bench.
4. Whether the apology tendered by the appellants was sufficient to purge the contempt.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court by Senior Members of the Nagpur Bar and Their Client:
The appeal arose from contempt proceedings against two senior members of the Nagpur Bar and their client. The contempt charges were based on an application for transfer of a case that allegedly scandalized the Court and aimed to pervert the due course of justice.

2. Allegations of Bias and Prejudice Against the Judges:
The client, along with his counsel, filed an application under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, alleging wrongful actions by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the police. During the hearing, the counsel for the client, Shri Shareef, argued against the preliminary objection raised by the State, which claimed that the client had suppressed material facts. The client and his counsel later filed an application for the transfer of the case to another Bench, citing observations by the judges that created a "bona fide belief" of prejudice against them.

3. Application for Transfer of Case to Another Bench:
The transfer application, signed by both counsel and the client, was based on the belief that the judges were biased and that justice would not be served. The High Court dismissed the application and upheld the preliminary objection, leading to the dismissal of the petition under Article 226. Subsequently, the judges issued notices for contempt against the client and his counsel for scandalizing the Court.

4. Whether the Apology Tendered by the Appellants Was Sufficient to Purge the Contempt:
The appellants filed written statements expressing regret but also defending their actions as part of their professional duties. The High Court found the application for transfer to constitute contempt and sentenced the counsel to fines. The High Court noted that the appellants' attitude of "defiant justification" and the belated plea of "error of judgment" did not merit consideration as an adequate apology.

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, recorded that the appellants had tendered an unqualified apology and adjourned the case, directing the apology to be tendered to the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court, however, did not accept the apology, stating that it was not genuinely contrite and that accepting it would set a bad precedent.

Upon the appeal's return to the Supreme Court, the appellants' counsel reaffirmed the genuineness of their apology. The Supreme Court emphasized that an apology must be a sincere expression of regret and not a mere formality. They noted that the appellants were under a mistaken belief about their professional duties and that their conduct was not wilful or contumacious.

The Supreme Court concluded that the unqualified apology tendered was sufficient to purge the contempt. They acknowledged that the High Court's condemnation itself was a significant punishment for the senior counsel and that the matter had become stale. The fines imposed by the High Court were set aside, and the apology was accepted.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the fines imposed on the appellants were set aside, and their unqualified apology was accepted as sufficient to purge the contempt. The Supreme Court issued a strong admonition and warning to the counsel for their conduct, emphasizing the need for clarity in the professional duties of advocates. No order as to costs was made in the proceedings.

---