Holding

The court held that the advocate's conduct amounted to gross criminal contempt of court and the apology was not bona fide, warranting imprisonment and fine.

Summary

Mr. Nand Lal Balwani, an advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar Association, shouted slogans and hurled his shoe in an open court, thereby interrupting the proceedings. He was informed that his conduct was intended to intimidate the court and was charged with contempt. Balwani filed an affidavit admitting his intemperate behaviour and claimed persecution by police agencies, also tendering an unqualified apology which the court found insincere. The Supreme Court examined Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and concluded that his actions amounted to gross criminal contempt. The court held that no special immunity is available to a lawyer for such conduct. Consequently, Balwani was sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default provision for an additional two months. The petition was disposed of with the contempt order.

Issues considered

Whether the advocate's shouting of slogans and throwing of a shoe in open court constitutes gross criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether an unqualified apology tendered by the contemnor can be considered bona fide and affect the punishment.
Whether an advocate is entitled to any special immunity from contempt provisions.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 14

Subjects

contempt of courtcriminal contemptadvocate misconductcourt dignitySection 14unqualified apologydeterrent punishmentimprisonment

Judgment

IN RE: MR. NAND LAL BALWANI A
FEBRUARY 26, 1999

(DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., AND M. SRINIVASAN AND
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]
B
.. Contempt of Cowt Act, 1971 : Section 14

Contempt-Advocate-Intemperate behaviour in Court-Shouted
slogans in the open Cowt and thereafter hurled shoe towards the Coun-Af-

........
fidavit in defe11ce stating that he /iad bee11 pemxuted by the police age11-
cies-Held, actio11 of Advocate, both by his words and deeds, i11 the presence
c
I
of Court amounts to gross oiminal contempt of Court-His action was aimed
at inti111idati11g the Cowt and causing inte1fere11ce in judicial proceed-
i11gs-Action of Advocate held most reprehe11sible amou11ti11g to gross
crimi11al contempt of Cow1-Sente11ce of simple impriso11111ent of four
months and fine of Rs. 2000 imposed-Unqualified apology tendered by D
• co11tem11or held not bo11a fide and accordingly rejected.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo moto contempt.

In Re: Mr. Nand Lal Balwani,
S/o. Late Sunder Das,
E
Rio D.9/2, P & T. Colony,
Santa Cruz (East) Bombay.

Jn-person for the Contemnor for the Respondent.

,. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This morning while the Court proceedings were going on, Mr. Nand
Lal Balwani, who claims to be an Advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar
Association since 1995, and had apparently no case on the Board of this
Bench, shouted slogans in the open Court and thereafter hurled his shoe G
towards the Court thereby interrupting the Court proceedings. He was
,I informed that his action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing
interference in conduct of judicial proceedings and amounted to gross
... contempt of this Court. He was informed of the charge and asked if he
had anything to say in his defence. At his request, time was given to him H
937
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A · to file an affidavit in response to the charge. The affidavit has been filed.

Mr. Nand Lal Balwani is present before us and accepts that the
charge has been read out to him and he has understood the same. He
states that he has filed this affidavit in which he has admitted his in-
temperate behaviour in the Court this morning. The contemnor was asked
B if he had anything further to say in his defence and he stated that he did
not have anything further to say in his defence but that he had filed an
interim affidavit and would like to file a detailed affidavit giving details of
how he had been persecuted by the police agencies so far. We do not
consider it necessary to examine him any further on that aspect since
C insofar as the charge of Contempt of Court is concerned, he has nothing
further to say.

Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 provides that when
it appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that
a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing,
D the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any .
time before the rising of the Court, inform him about the charges and
afford him an opportunity to make his defence. An order of punishment
of discharge can thereafter be made.

The action of the contemnor, both by his words and deeds, in the
E presence of the Court amounts to gross criminal Contempt of Court. His
action was aimed at intimidating the Court and causing interference in
judicial proceedings. It is unfortunate and we feel rather concerned that a
person belonging to the Bar should have behaved in this manner. Law does
not give a lawyer, unsatisfied with the result of any litigation, licence to
F permit himself the liberty of causing disrespect to the Court or attempting,
in any manner, to lower the dignity of the Courts. A lawyer does not enjoy
any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act where he is found
to have committed a gross Contempt of Court. Courts cannot be. in-
timidated to seek favourable orders. The action of the respondent is most
G reprehensible and has the tendency to interfere with tne administration of I
justice and undermine the dignity of the Court and the majesty of law.
From the manner in which the contemnor has behaved a deliberate,
t.
motivated and calculated attempt to impair the administration of justice is
discernible.

H From the affidavit, filed by the contemnor, he appears to be ag-
IN RE: NAND LAL BALWANI 939

.... grieved of alleged suffering at "the hands of all police agencies". This was, A
however, no way to ventilate his grievances against the police agencies. As
a lawyer, he ,;hould have known better. It is most unbefitting for an
Advocate to act in the manner in which the contemnor acted. No system
of justice can tolerate such type of behaviour. In the established facts and

-•
_,
circumstances of the case, the contemnor has committed gross criminal
contempt and we hold him guilty as such.
B

In the affidavit the contemnor has tendered unqualified apology. He
states :

"I tender an unqualified apology for my intemparate behaviour
'\ in the Court this morning. I have been through a horroing time
c
I
and have been very disturbed in the matter of the present litiga-
tions.

I have no intention of causing any disrespect to this Hon'ble
Court in any manner lowl?ring the dignity of this Hon'ble Court. D
...
I once again tender my unqualified apology. I say that during
the period that I have been practicing as a lawyer I never caused
of any disrespect to the legal system."

The apology tendered by the contemnor does not appear to us to be E
at all bona fide and genuine in view of his attitude exhibited in Court during
his questioning and seems to have been made only to escape punishment.
He does not appear to be repentent at all. We, therefore, do not accept
the apology.

_, Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence committed by the F
contemnor it is necessary to impose deterrent punishment on him so that
it serves as an example to others and no one indulges in repetition of such
;..
acts. We, therefore, sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for four
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. G
The contemnor is present in Court. He shall be taken in custody
.I.
fortwith to serve the sentence.
~
T.N.A. Petition disposed of.
H