The Calcutta High Court has imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on a lawyer for contempt of court but opted not to impose a prison sentence to avoid harming his career
The Calcutta High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on advocate Somabrata Mandal for contempt of court concerning his complaint’s pendency before the Bar Council of West Bengal [Debanjan Mondal vs Somabrata Mandal].
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya found that Mandal had filed an application before the Bar Council of India (BCI) to withdraw his case from the State Bar Council, despite the High Court having reserved its decision on his petition regarding the same issue.
“The very act of the contemnor in filing the same at a juncture when judgment had been reserved in the matter after hearing both sides shows the contumacious action of the contemnor in seeking to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition,” the Court stated.
The Court added that such an action would have been understandable if there had been an inordinate delay after the hearing concluded and before the order was passed. However, there was only an eight-day gap between the final hearing and the judgement in December 2023.
Mandal’s writ petition involved a legal issue related to the cut-off date for disposing of complaints before the State Bar Council. Under the law, if the complaint is not disposed of within one year, it automatically stands transferred to the BCI. Mandal argued that the one-year period begins when the complaint is filed with the State Bar Council, while the Court ruled that it starts only when the State Bar Council refers the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
Despite the Court’s ruling, Mandal approached the BCI to withdraw the complaint from the State Bar Council. In the contempt proceedings verdict dated July 12, the Court noted that Mandal, being experienced in the legal profession, could not be deemed naive enough to misinterpret the provisions of the Advocates Act. The Court concluded that Mandal sought to frustrate the outcome of the writ petition before the judgement was delivered.
The Court found that Mandal’s contempt continued after the judgement, as he did not withdraw his application from the BCI despite the ruling not being in his favor. He did not seek an adjournment to await a decision in appeal against the December 2023 judgement.
“The contemnor boldly proceeded with the application before the Bar Council of India, merely pointing out before the Bar Council of India that an order had been passed in the meantime by this court, apparently to save the contemnor’s skin so that the contemnor was not held guilty of suppression of the order subsequently,” the Court remarked.
It also noted that Mandal complied with the BCI directive to withdraw his appeal from the High Court to facilitate further proceedings before the bar body.
Concluding that there was a willful and deliberate attempt by Mandal to thwart the court decision of December 2023, the Court said it could not be purged merely by an unqualified apology. However, acknowledging Mandal’s standing in the legal profession and his years of practice, the Court decided against imprisonment, which would have an “irreversible adverse effect on his career.”
“In view of the gross contempt committed by the contemnor in his actions as indicated above, the contemnor is directed to deposit a fine to the tune of ₹1 lakh to any of the Advocates’ benevolent funds of this court by August 9, 2024,” the Court ordered.
Advocates Krishnaraj Thaker, Rohan Raj, Indranil Munshi, Vedika Bhotika, Anushka Sarkhel, and Soumavo Mukherjee represented the contemnor. Advocates Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Biswajit Kumar, Soumya Chowdhury, and Susera Mitra represented the petitioners in contempt applications.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
